Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today Senator Blunt and I are reintroducing the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, and we are pleased to be joined in this effort in this Congress by our colleagues, Senators Scott and Menendez. The Family Self Sufficient, FSS, Program is an existing Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, employment and savings incentive initiative for families that use section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. FSS provides participants access to the resources and training that enable them to pursue higher paying employment opportunities and meet financial goals, while putting FSS families in a better position to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as additional workforce training or the purchase or maintenance of a car needed for commuting purposes. In short, FSS is all about giving our constituents the incentives and the tools to move up the economic ladder. Our bipartisan legislation enhances the FSS Program by streamlining the administration of this program, broadening the supportive services that can be provided, and extending the reach of the FSS Program to tenants who live in privately owned properties with project-based assistance. In short, we make the FSS Program easier to administer and more effective. First, to streamline the FSS Program, our bill would permanently combine two separate but similar FSS Programs into one. Under the existing authorization, HUD is supposed to operate one FSS Program for those families served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families served by the Public Housing Program. This is the case even though the purpose of each FSS Program--to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency--is identical. Unfortunately, without a permanent change in the authorization, public housing agencies, PHAs, may at some point in the future have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With our bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden permanently. Second, our legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment of a high school equivalency certificate, education in pursuit of a postsecondary degree or certification, and financial literacy, such as training in financial management, financial coaching, and asset building. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but combining this resource with the support and services to help families get ahead increases the effectiveness of this Federal investment. Our legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to protect and grow their earnings. Lastly, our bill permanently extends the FSS Program to families who live in privately owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets. Families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality. I thank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Compass Working Capital, Housing Partnership Network, Preservation of Affordable Housing, National Housing Conference, Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future, National NeighborWorks Association, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Public Housing Authority Directors Association, Public Housing Association of Rhode Island, and Rhode Island Housing for their support. I also thank Senator Blunt, Senator Menendez, and Senator Scott for their partnership and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a greater chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, let me thank my colleague, Senator Manchin, for arranging the time to talk about the ongoing opioid epidemic across the country. I know his home State of West Virginia-- much like my home State of Rhode Island--has been hit particularly hard by this epidemic. This is not happening in some far off place or some distant country. It is happening in Rhode Island, West Virginia, and, indeed, every State throughout the Nation. Last year, over 330 Rhode Islanders lost their lives due to opioids. Rhode Island is a small State, so let me talk about a national statistic that shows the extent of this crisis. Last year, drug overdoses killed 50,000 Americans. That means more people died last year because of drug overdoses than due to car crashes or gun violence. These numbers are staggering, and it is happening in all of our communities. Since 2011, the number of overdose deaths has increased by more than 90 percent. Unfortunately, year after year, Rhode Island continues to top the Nation in terms of rates of overdose deaths. We must work to turn this around and get more people access to treatment for opioid addiction. In 2008, almost a decade ago, Congress enacted the landmark Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Law. For the first time, the law required insurance companies to cover behavioral health services in the same way that it would cover physical health services. This was a critical step, but it ultimately did not solve the problem, as some insurance companies have continued to find ways to avoid complying with the law--or at least its spirit. It took passage of the Affordable Care Act to improve access to behavioral health services. For the first time, critical consumer protections, like banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions, ensured that individuals with substance abuse disorders could not be denied coverage. Further, the ACA established a set of essential health benefits that all insurance plans must cover, including mental health and substance abuse treatment. Gone are the days when consumers would pay steep prices for health insurance that in actuality did not even cover basic health services, such as mental health care or maternity care. In addition, the ACA prohibits lifetime annual limits on care. Before the ACA, many people with chronic health conditions, such as substance use disorders, would hit their annual cap just a couple of months into the year and then would have to pay all other costs out of pocket for the rest of the year. Lastly, the expansion of Medicaid has made a tremendous improvement in access to behavioral health services. In States like Rhode Island that have expanded Medicaid, we have seen a sharp drop in the percentage of people with substance use disorders who seek care in the emergency department because they are uninsured. Medicaid is the single largest payer of substance use disorder services and pays for one-third of all medication-assisted treatment in the country. TrumpCare would reverse all these gains. According to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, repeal of the ACA would mean 2.8 million people with substance use disorders would be at risk of losing their coverage. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion would cut $4.5 billion from mental health and substance use disorders for those with low incomes, to say nothing of TrumpCare's broader goal of ending Medicaid as we know it. TrumpCare would all but eliminate this critical safety net. TrumpCare goes even further to turn back the clock on consumer protections like preexisting conditions. People with substance use disorders would be disadvantaged immediately, as their disorder could be considered a preexisting condition. This has the double effect of pricing people with mental and behavioral health issues out of the market entirely and encouraging people not to seek care out of fear of being labeled by their insurance company as having a preexisting condition. On top of that, TrumpCare would gut the essential health benefits in the ACA. This means that there would be no rules about what health insurance must cover, such as preventive health services and mental and behavioral health services. Even with coverage, people will have to pay out of pocket for the services they need. For substance use disorders, which could add up to $20,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs alone. Over the last couple of years, I have worked with my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to include historic funding increases for programs that help the opioid crisis. In fact, the fiscal year 2017 omnibus provided $511 million for prevention, enforcement, treatment, and recovery across various agencies, including over $300 million for the Department of Health and Human Services, $50 million for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and over $160 million for the Department of Justice. Last year, we passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which directed $1 billion to States to combat the opioid crisis. We must continue these efforts. However, this week, the President released his budget proposal for next year, and it does the exact opposite. First of all, the President's budget doubles down on his plan to decimate Medicaid. The President has proposed cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, block-granting the program with no protections for the most vulnerable. In fact, his budget offers no details on how it plans to structure Medicaid--just that he intends to cut the program beyond repair. On top of that, the President's budget makes enormous cuts to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency, SAMHSA, which implements many of our most effective substance use disorder prevention and treatment programs, such as the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program, which President Trump has proposed cutting by over 20 percent. Further, President Trump has proposed cutting the National Institutes of Health by nearly $6 billion, which would interrupt critical research into new and better ways to treat substance use disorders, along with research into how we can better treat pain without the use of addicting opioid painkillers. Coupled with TrumpCare, this budget proposal would only worsen the opioid crisis. I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues to prevent that from happening. I am heartened to see so many of my colleagues talk about these very issues this afternoon. It is my hope that we will be able to work together over the coming months to ensure that the gains we have made in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus and the Cures Act are not lost. We have much more work to do, and people in my State and across the country are counting on us to do that for them. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to recognize GEN Daniel B. Allyn for his exemplary dedication to duty and service to the U.S. Army and to our Nation. For the last 3 years, he has served as the 35th Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and is planning to retire next month. General Allyn is a fellow New Englander from Berwick, ME. He was commissioned as an infantry officer from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1981. General Allyn and his family were also fortunate to make a midcareer return to New England while he was a student at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. General Allyn has commanded troops from the platoon through corps level and served as commander of U.S. Army Forces Command, along with myriad other staff assignments. He served an overseas assignment in Korea and operational deployments for Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada, two peacekeeping deployments to the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia, Operation Desert Spring in Kuwait, two tours in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Unified Response in Haiti, and one tour in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. During a recent interview, General Allyn reflected on his time in uniform by saying ``the only legacy we leave behind is the leaders that we develop on our watch.'' The U.S. Army is fortunate to have leaders like General Allyn, and those who have served under him have no doubt benefitted immeasurably from the mentorship he has provided. We should all be thankful for the generations of Army leaders who will follow in his footsteps and, in so doing, positively contribute to the security of our nation. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending GEN Daniel B. Allyn for over 36 years of service to our country. We wish Dan and his wife, Debbie, the very best in the years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Dr. Heather Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force is an important and influential position within our national security structure. As the head of the military Department, the Secretary of the Air Force oversees recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of the force. The next Air Force Secretary will oversee the Defense Department's most complex and costly acquisition programs in history. The Secretary will also lead 495,000 Active-Duty, Guard, and Reserve members through the challenges of rebuilding long-term sustainable readiness, while contending with ongoing operational demands around the globe. Dr. Wilson has the knowledge and expertise to serve in that role. She is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a Rhodes scholar. She served in the House of Representatives and on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Currently, Dr. Wilson is president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Without question, Dr. Wilson has notable credentials, but I have significant concerns about certain of her past actions. First, Heather Wilson & Company, LLC, founded by Dr. Wilson following her tenure in Congress, had contracts with four National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, laboratories--Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Nevada National Security Site. From January 2009 through part of 2011, Dr. Wilson's company received $464,000 in payments from these laboratories for consulting services. However, due to claims of contracting irregularities involving the company, the Department of Energy inspector general conducted two investigations into this matter. As a result, the contractors that operated the laboratories on behalf of the government paid back at least $442,877 to the Department of Energy with respect to payments made to Dr. Wilson's company. The rationale for the repayments was the absence of any appreciable evidence of work product. Furthermore, Lockheed Martin, which operated Sandia National Laboratories, agreed to an overall settlement of $4.7 million for their management failures. Let me be clear. Dr. Wilson was not found culpable of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the allegations that were levied are serious and directly involved her company. As such, during her confirmation hearing, I asked Dr. Wilson about these contracts and the allegations of impropriety. Unfortunately, I did not receive a satisfactory response. Dr. Wilson deflected any suggestions that she bore any responsibility for these contracting irregularities. As concerning as these allegations are, there was another incident that I found even more problematic as we reviewed Dr. Wilson's qualifications to serve as Secretary of the Air Force. In October of 2006, while serving as a Member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Wilson contacted a sitting U.S. attorney, David C. Iglesias, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, regarding the status of Federal corruption cases in New Mexico. This action was highly unusual and contrary to guidance in effect at the time from the House Ethics Committee. In fact, the House Ethics Manual provided that a request for background information or a status report from a U.S. attorney ``may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.'' The guidance provided by the manual stated that the best way to communicate any inquiry or question was in writing, in order to make it part of the proceedings. As a former Member of the House myself, I have deep concerns about this action in terms of House ethics rules and the possibility that a Federal prosecutor may have felt pressured by Congress in an ongoing investigation. In September of 2008, a joint report by the Department of Justice inspector general and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the removal of nine U.S. attorneys, including Mr. Iglesias, concluded that ``the evidence we have developed so far shows that Wilson . . . in fact called Iglesias before the election, and that the substance of the call led Iglesias to believe he was being pressured to indict the courthouse case before the upcoming election.'' During her nomination hearing, Dr. Wilson testified that she called Mr. Iglesias because, in her words, ``an individual or constituent with knowledge of ongoing investigations told me that the U.S. Attorney was intentionally delaying corruption prosecutions, and I felt as though I had to address that allegation in some appropriate way.'' However, as I previously mentioned, contacting a U.S. attorney in this manner was clearly contrary to the ethics rules that govern the conduct of Members of the House of Representatives. Perhaps Dr. Wilson, though, does deserve the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her intention, when she called Mr. Iglesias, was not to pressure him. However, when I asked Dr. Wilson the name of the individual who made the allegation about Mr. Iglesias's intentionally delaying corruption prosecutions, she refused to provide the person's name. Dr. Wilson argued that she had an obligation not to reveal who it was who made a highly politicized and unusual charge against Mr. Iglesias. I think providing the name of the person is important because it helps us to understand the purpose of Dr. Wilson's call to Mr. Iglesias. It is one thing if a concerned constituent with no ties or interests in corruption cases under investigation innocuously contacted Dr. Wilson. Perhaps her subsequent call to Mr. Iglesias could be excused. But because we do not have the name, we have no way to verify the motive. It remains very possible that the person who contacted Dr. Wilson wanted to pressure Mr. Iglesias to move forward with these pending corruption cases. If that is the case, it casts Dr. Wilson's call to Mr. Iglesias in a much different light. Unfortunately, without further information from Dr. Wilson, I will not be able to resolve my concerns about this incident. The two issues I have just discussed have reluctantly led me to conclude that while Dr. Wilson has excellent academic and professional qualifications, I must vote against her nomination before the full Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use 10 minutes of the Republicans' allotted time because my side has used all of our time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great Rhode Islander and patriot, BG Amedeo ``Armie'' C. Merolla, Rhode Island Army National Guard, RIARNG, retired, who passed away last week at the age of 88. Mr. Merolla was born in Providence and graduated from Mount Pleasant High School before attending Brown University and Harvard Law School. At Brown, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, beginning what would become a 36-year career in service to our country marked by distinction and numerous decorations. In 1955, Mr. Merolla enlisted in the RIARNG and was later commissioned as a first lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General Corps. The U.S. Senate approved Mr. Merolla's appointment to the rank of brigadier general in 1984, making him the first Italian American to become a general officer in the RIARNG. Indeed, he was part of a generation of Italian Americans who served with distinction, bringing great pride to this community while becoming an integral part of the fabric of our State. He was subsequently appointed assistant adjutant general and deputy commanding general--Army of the RIARNG. Even after his retirement in 1987, Mr. Merolla continued to serve. He was appointed commander of the Rhode Island State Defense Force, where he served until 1997, and to the honorary rank of major general in the Rhode Island Militia in 2005. Mr. Merolla's military service was considerable and noteworthy, as was his legal career and contributions to his community and our State. He held numerous positions, including as legal counsel to several Rhode Island officials and agencies. He was also a former president of the Rhode Island Trial Lawyers Association, chairman of the Warwick School Committee, president of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Warwick, and trustee of St. Gregory the Great Church, among many other leadership roles. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Mr. Merolla's wife, Norma, and their four children: Katherine Merolla, Julie Merolla, Major Sandra Merolla, USARNG, retired, and Warwick City councilman Steve Merolla, as well as to the rest of his family and friends.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to be Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. Mr. Clayton has achieved great personal success as a corporate attorney, where for years he represented some of our Nation's largest financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs. Personal success is not the same as being willing to safeguard the interests of all who participate in and rely on our capital markets, especially working-class Americans, as I believe a good SEC Chairman must. Based on Mr. Clayton's testimony and his answers to my questions and those of my colleagues on the Banking Committee, I am unable to support his confirmation. As more and more working-class Americans know, pensions are becoming rarer, and more American families, assuming they even have extra money to spare from their paychecks, must invest in securities to save for retirement or send their kids to college. The integrity and efficiency of our capital markets then are not only of great importance to the megabanks and tycoon investors, but also to working-class Americans. It is therefore in all of our interests to have strong and vigilant Federal financial regulators who can help ensure we avoid another financial crisis. While the megabanks have bounced back after staring into the abyss, the last financial crisis, which began in the Bush administration, had devastating consequences on working-class Americans, too many of whom lost their jobs, their nest eggs, and their homes. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has recovered, the impacts are still felt by too many in Rhode Island and throughout the country. While it is vitally important to help small businesses raise capital and grow their companies by actually creating jobs here in the United States, it is also equally essential that we have a strong cop on the beat that upholds and improves the integrity of our capital markets. Initially, I was encouraged to read in Mr. Clayton's testimony before the Senate Banking Committee that ``there is zero room for bad actors in our capital markets'' and that ``I am 100 percent committed to rooting out any fraud and shady practices in our financial system.'' During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Clayton if he would support my bipartisan legislation with Senator Grassley that would deter fraud by increasing the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties. Our legislation responds to former SEC Chair Mary Shapiro's statement that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' In his response to me, Mr. Clayton said, ``I am very willing to take a look at the issue and work with you on it and give you my views after I've been better educated on it.'' I accepted this response for the time being and wrote to Mr. Clayton after the hearing to ask for his thoughts on this matter now that he had time to study the issue. He responded: ``As a general matter, I believe that the effective empowerment and functioning of the SEC Enforcement Division are fundamental to the fair and efficient functioning of our markets and the protection of investors. Under existing law, the Commission has the authority to seek civil monetary penalties in a number of circumstances. I would not want the Division or Commission to be unnecessarily or inappropriately constrained in pursuing civil monetary penalties, which can serve an important deterrent effect in appropriate circumstances. If confirmed as Chair, I will work with my fellow Commissioners and the Enforcement Division staff to enforce the law as it is written, including with respect to civil monetary penalties. I also would be willing to engage with Congress regarding any changes to the SEC's statutory authority to seek monetary penalties that Congress deems appropriate.'' I am glad Mr. Clayton agrees that penalties can serve as deterrents, and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Clayton would not want the SEC to be ``unnecessarily or inappropriately constrained in pursuing civil monetary penalties.'' Indeed, what appears to be constraining the SEC in part is exactly what former Chair Schapiro said, that penalty limits are not high enough to serve as effective deterrents. Given this, I do not understand Mr. Clayton's hesitation in clearly supporting my bipartisan legislation with Senator Grassley. This does not sound like a 100 percent commitment to ``rooting out any fraud and shady practices in our financial system.'' This is just one example, but based on a review of his record and his responses to the committee's questions, I am not confident Mr. Clayton will vigorously work to protect all investors, in the same way as he throughout his career has defended the interests of his corporate and megabank clients, particularly when those interests may come into conflict, as we know they will. In my opinion, there should be no question of an SEC chairman's willingness to stand up and fight for working-class Americans and mom-and-pop investors. Indeed, as Senator Brown, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, has stated himself, ``it's not the first time we've seen a nominee like Mr. Clayton. I was concerned about Mary Jo White's conflicts and corporate law background. She was conflicted in dozens of high-profile cases, and then a month after stepping down as Chair, she returned to her old law firm. As a lawyer might say--that's bad precedent.'' What we need is a strong SEC Chair that will vigorously protect and defend the interests of all American investors. I hope he proves me wrong, but based on the record before me, I am not convinced Mr. Clayton is up to this task, and therefore, I cannot vote to confirm him.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last Thursday I had the honor of joining my friends from the Armenian National Committee of Rhode Island in my hometown of Cranston, RI, to raise the flag of Armenia in remembrance of the 102nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Over a century ago, the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire summoned and executed over 200 Armenian community leaders and intellectuals, beginning 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, indeed, throughout the world. The survivors of the Armenian genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit and steadfast resolve and went on to greatly contribute to the lands in which they found new homes and communities, including the United States. This genocide has been denied for far too long. That is why I have joined with several of my colleagues on resolutions over the years to encourage the U.S. to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. But as we remember our history, we must also look to the present and to our future. Recent efforts to bring Azerbaijan to the negotiating table have injected new momentum into the push for a lasting agreement in Nogorno Karabakh. It is critical that the United States, along with our regional partners, continue to press for a peaceful resolution to the conflict that respects the rights of all stakeholders and allows for a more stable and prosperous future for Armenia. As ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I remain committed to supporting efforts to provide assistance to Armenia to strengthen security, promote economic growth, and support democratic reforms and development. We also must find a way to come together to recognize our past and to show our unwavering support to those facing persecution today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senate has decided on a purely partisan basis to resolve the impasse of Judge Gorsuch's nomination by invoking the so-called ``nuclear option.'' For the first time in our history, nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States may advance from nomination to confirmation with a simple majority vote in this body. I have heard many of my colleagues ascribe blame equally to both sides, and I have heard analysts and experts say the same. One can question that diagnosis, as some very respected scholars like Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute have demonstrated that our political polarization over the last several years, and hence our current impasse, has been driven predominantly by the ever more conservative ideology of the Republican Party. Regardless, here we are. The Gorsuch nomination lacks the traditional level of support required for a Supreme Court seat, and the majority leader has chosen a step that Democrats clearly and emphatically rejected when we needed to confirm nominees with broad support but were blocked because they were submitted by President Obama. I had hoped it was not too late for cooler heads to prevail. Unfortunately, adherence to the principle of 60 votes for consideration of a Justice of the Supreme Court and indeed the existing rule in the Senate was ignored, and we are at this impasse. Since many have drawn a false equivalence between the last so-called ``nuclear option'' vote of several years ago and what occurred today, let me take a moment to explain, for my part, why I very reluctantly supported a change to the Senate precedent for nominees other than the Supreme Court in 2013. During President Obama's tenure, Republicans necessitated more cloture votes than were taken under every previous President combined. Let me repeat that. During President Obama's tenure, Republicans necessitated more cloture votes than were taken under every previous President combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush. In numerical terms, Republicans demanded a cloture vote 79 times over just 5 years. In contrast--from the Founding Fathers all the way through George W. Bush--the Senate only faced that situation 68 times. Republicans obstructed Obama nominees more in 5 years than the United States Senate obstructed all nominees combined over the course of more than two centuries. The bitter irony, of course, was that after a nominee would break through, Republicans often would vote overwhelmingly to confirm the very nominee they so adamantly delayed. It was clear their sole guiding principle was obstruction and delay. Judges nominated by President Obama faced some of the longest median and average wait times under the five most recent Presidents, and President Obama tied with President Clinton for the fewest number of circuit court nominees confirmed during that same period. All that time, judicial vacancies stacked up. Justice was delayed and denied. Critical public service roles went unfilled, and the American public came to regard Congress as a place where nothing of substance can occur. It was under those dire and unprecedented circumstances that I reluctantly joined my colleagues to change the filibuster rules for executive nominations and judicial nominations, other than the Supreme Court--very consciously excluding the Supreme Court, which at that time was recognized as appropriate by all my Republican colleagues. But there really is no equivalence between that decision and what the majority did today. Even in 2013, at the height of Republicans' partisan attacks on President Obama, Senate Democrats believed the Supreme Court was too important to subject to a simple majority vote. The Supreme Court is a coordinate branch of our government, and its lifetime appointees have final authority to interpret the Constitution. We understood then--as we do now--that the traditional 60-vote threshold to conclude debate on the highest Court in our nation was too important to the consensus- driven character of this body to sacrifice. I think we also have to acknowledge that a President already has nominated a consensus choice capable of earning 60 votes to a seat on the Court, and that nominee was Chief Judge Merrick Garland. The unprecedented treatment he received by the majority has already made this one of the most infamous and politicalized Supreme Court nominations in American history. It is all the more disconcerting that Judge Gorsuch witnessed Judge Garland be treated so poorly but now seems to feel entitled to his seat on the Court, even if the Senate must change its precedence to give it to him. I already addressed this body about my deep concerns regarding Judge Gorsuch's judicial record of ideological activism and championing the powerful over the powerless, but it is worth going into greater detail on one of his opinions that is emblematic of this, and that has recently come to the fore. In 2008, Judge Gorsuch heard what is referred to as the Luke P. Case. In that case, the parents of an autistic child sought reimbursement from a school district for the cost of specialized education because the school had not provided adequate accommodations for the child under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. The case presented heart-wrenching facts that are too familiar for families affected by disabilities such as autism. The child, Luke, experienced severe behavioral issues in public and at home. His parents sought advice from the best sources available to create the most effective atmosphere for him to make progress in school. Ultimately, they recognized the public school Luke had attended could not provide the learning atmosphere required by the law for Luke. So they placed him in a different school setting. Luke's parents exercised their rights under IDEA. The Colorado Department of Education, the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, and a Federal district court all agreed that the law entitled them to reimbursement from the school district that was not able to provide an adequate learning environment for Luke. This should have been the end of the matter, but when the school district appealed the case to the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch's decision reversed all these factfinders to hold in favor of the school district. In order to reach his conclusion, Judge Gorsuch went to great lengths--picking and choosing passages from previous decisions--to weave a new standard that essentially eviscerated the protections under IDEA. His strict interpretation of this landmark law utterly ignored congressional intent and created a new precedent that schools need only provide ``merely more than de minimis'' or, in plainer terms, just a little bit more than zero educational opportunity for children with disabilities. The immediate result of this decision was to force Luke back into an inadequate learning environment and leave his parents with yet another unexpected financial hardship. At the same time, Judge Gorsuch's new legal standard threatened to degrade the quality of education for children with disabilities all across the country. The good news for Luke's family--and for so many others--is that the Supreme Court of the United States intervened in a rare unanimous opinion, reversing Judge Gorsuch's position--ironically during his confirmation hearings. The Nation has been spared the potential harm that could have resulted from lowering expectations for schools nationwide and leaving families like Luke's without sufficient recourse. Yet as my colleagues and I have pointed out at every turn of this confirmation process, this is far from the only decision by Judge Gorsuch that is widely outside the mainstream of modern jurisprudence. He is not--and was never intended to be--a consensus nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that this body is divided over his nomination to the highest Court in the land, and Judge Gorsuch could not earn enough support under the 60-vote threshold. The filibuster was intended to be an institutional safeguard that protects the minority by requiring broad consensus for major decisions by this body. It should be equally apparent in this circumstance that the filibuster did its job. A large minority of this body viewed Judge Gorsuch as too extreme for the Supreme Court, and that minority blocked cloture on his nomination. There was no national emergency, no danger, no serious consequence whatsoever that prevented the majority from reversing course and working with Democrats and the President to find a consensus nominee. In one day, the majority has lessened the distinction between our Chamber and our colleagues across the Capitol, all the while lowering ourselves further in the eyes of the Nation and opening the door to an even more polarized judiciary. I regret that this is the case, and I hope this body can turn back from the course we find ourselves on today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are few moments in the life of a nation when the people are presented with a single choice that directly affects what equality before the law will mean for the next generation. The opportunity to grant a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is one of those moments. The next Supreme Court Justice will break the 4- to-4 deadlock that has constrained the Court since the passing of Justice Scalia and this body's unprecedented refusal to act on Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to fill that vacancy during the final year of President Obama's second term. Before discussing the pending nominee's merits, we must consider this nomination in its historical context. Chief Judge Garland, I believe, was one of the most qualified nominees for the Supreme Court in generations. After meeting with him and reviewing his record, I had no doubt that he easily would have earned bipartisan support and cleared the 60-vote threshold, as did each of President Obama's prior nominees to the Court. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused even to meet with him. His treatment was disgraceful. Rejecting the treatment Chief Judge Garland received, I met with Judge Neil Gorsuch and shared a thoughtful conversation. I found him to be intelligent and articulate but at the same time, he was not particularly forthcoming about his judicial record, which contains many distressing examples of inconsistency and ideological rigidity. Nothing in our conversation or his testimony before the Judiciary Committee convinced me that he plans to moderate his positions to dispense equal justice under the law. I am deeply concerned that granting him a lifetime appointment to be a final authority on the meaning of the Constitution would further tip the scales of justice in favor of corporations and the powerful at the expense of working people and the powerless. Therefore, I cannot support Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a pivotal time for our Nation, when the people's trust in the judiciary is in decline, attributed by many to the streak of 5-to-4 decisions of the Roberts Court that have consolidated corporate power. Given how radically the Court has changed many of our institutions over just the past decade, it is difficult to overstate the importance of understanding a nominee's judicial values and the human element the nominee will bring to the Court. I have applied the same, simple test to each Supreme Court nominee throughout my time in this body. It is not enough for a nominee to display intellectual gifts or to possess a textbook understanding of American history and jurisprudence. Judicial decision making at the Supreme Court is not an assembly line where mechanical application of the law will resolve every dispute. Rather, the nominee must demonstrate that she or he will use judicial discretion to give meaning to the text and spirit of the Constitution. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone laid the foundation for this model of judicial review in United States v. Carolene Products Co. He wrote that judges must enforce the specific text of the Constitution, but he went further than that, urging judges to apply stricter scrutiny to laws that impede the effective operation of government and channels of political participation. Judges should likewise demand the most compelling justifications for laws that single out powerless, discrete, and insular minorities. These principles deeply influenced future scholars and judges and laid the groundwork for modern constitutional law as we have understood it since the Warren Court. These are the decisions that struck down race and gender segregation, proclaimed the rule of ``one person, one vote,'' enshrined the right to remain silent and to counsel in police custody, and recognized the fundamental right of a person to marry for love, regardless of race or gender. This tradition stands in stark contrast to the new wave of hyper- partisan legal activism we have seen manifested in our courts in recent years. This judicial activism attempts to disguise judges' personal political agenda by arguing that they are merely applying pure, indisputable, mechanical logic. This philosophy goes by varied names: textualism, originalism, strict constructionism, and so forth. But in the main, it is an ideological prism to disguise traditional judicial discretion, expand the law without limits to benefit politically powerful majority groups and corporations, and constrict the law for the minorities, workers, and the politically powerless. We know too well the devastating effects of this line of thinking as it has manifested itself in the Roberts Court. In the case of Shelby County, the Court disregarded congressional intent and ruled 5 to 4 that the preclearance formula that helped millions of African Americans secure the vote in States with a history of discrimination was no longer necessary. This freed several States to enact severely restrictive election laws that clearly benefit one party and racial group at the expense of another, and courts are still working to resolve these imbalances. In Hobby Lobby, with an intellectual framework formed in part by Judge Gorsuch, the Court ruled 5 to 4 to give for-profit corporations religious rights to opt out of providing comprehensive health coverage for their employees. This has opened the door for corporate religious challenges to an untold number of duly enacted restraints on corporate excess, from child labor laws to basic protections against employment discrimination. In Citizens United, as we all too well know, the Court broke with decades of precedent, the facts of the case, and common sense to create a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money on our elections. Indeed, our political system is still reeling from billions of dollars in anonymous political expenditures, and we are only now beginning to recognize the national security concerns that have resulted, with hostile powers, such as Russia, seeking to influence our democracy. In order to satisfy partisan, ideological ends, the Court has left us powerless to limit the purchase of political influence or even to know who is spending all this money on our politics. Judge Gorsuch's record strongly suggests that he would contribute to the Roberts Court's partisan, pro-corporate orientation. Indeed, the very same business groups that spent $7 million in dark money to block Chief Judge Garland's nomination to this seat also spent $10 million on ads and lobbying efforts to support Judge Gorsuch's nomination. It stands to reason that these groups believe that Judge Gorsuch shares their right-wing beliefs and will benefit their interests. The Judiciary is supposed to be above politics. Judges write opinions to satisfy due process and establish precedents that will guide future decisions. The opinion-writing process is not intended to be an arena for judges to pursue self-serving or ideological ends. That is why I am deeply concerned with Judge Gorsuch's clear willingness on the Tenth Circuit to go beyond precedent and the facts of a case before him to advance arguments designed to bend the law to his ideology. In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, Judge Gorsuch joined a panel decision that struck down uneven contribution limits in Colorado election laws. He then wrote separately to advocate that all campaign finance laws should be subject to greater constitutional questioning. This was both unnecessary to decide the case, and a clear signal by Judge Gorsuch that he would work to abolish what remains of laws limiting the flow of anonymous corporate money into our elections. Judge Gorsuch has reached furthest beyond precedent when doing so would deconstruct Federal agencies that constrain corporations, and protect workers, consumers, and the environment. This confirmation process has introduced many to a relatively obscure doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference. The Chevron case stands for the essentially uncontested proposition that, when someone sues a Federal agency and a reasonable person could read the statute at issue more than one way, the court should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the law it is charged with enforcing. This case has long been a target for attacks by corporations and their advocates because it levels the playing field in cases between massively well- funded corporate lawyers who want no regulations, and agencies charged with bringing big business into compliance with the law. Judge Gorsuch has written strongly against this principle, but even Justice Scalia acknowledged the sound reasoning behind the Chevron case. Judge Gorsuch would seemingly return us to the old days when powerful companies could pollute the environment, scam their customers, and discriminate against their employees as long as they could pay enough lawyers and get the right judge when the Federal agency sues. In the case of Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he took the very unusual step of writing a concurrence to his own majority opinion in order to attack Federal agencies and make the case that decades of Chevron precedent should be overturned. It is highly unusual, after you have written the majority opinion at the circuit level deciding the case, that you would then step aside and write a separate epistle advancing your ideas. He wrote in language that is familiar to those of us in the political branches of government, but out of the ordinary for a Federal judge. He compared Federal agencies to a ``tyrannical king'' and a ``behemoth'' and a ``colossus'' and laid out his constitutional theory for challenging Chevron in the Supreme Court. None of this analysis was necessary to the case before Judge Gorsuch. Yet in writing this and similar opinions, Judge Gorsuch signaled his willingness to break from precedent and contort the law to fit his ideological vision of how the system should work to benefit the powerful and his preferred interests. My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee spent a great deal of time and effort questioning Judge Gorsuch and trying to elicit responses about his basic judicial philosophy. Unfortunately, his answers were largely nonresponsive and failed to address many of our concerns about his record. Judge Gorsuch's record and writings shows he believes judges should always interpret the Constitution and other laws from the perspective of those who first drafted the law, regardless of how the world looks today. The Founders and Framers, however, did not leave us a blueprint to answer every new question of law. Nor did the delegates to the Constitutional Convention demand that all future judges be ``originalists.'' The laws and values of 1789 would shock and alienate--as they should--many Americans today, particularly women and racial and other minority groups. Worse yet, a judge attempting to resolve a case as if it were the 18th, 19th, or even 20th centuries may wittingly or unwittingly use that construct to inject into the case the judge's own view of how the government ought to work. The Hobby Lobby case is a key example of this ideological inconsistency at work to the detriment of less powerful Americans. This case concerned, as I noted earlier, whether a for-profit corporation could refuse to comply with the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers provide health coverage, including contraceptives, to over 23,000 employees on the ground that doing so would conflict with the corporation's purported religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The text of RFRA provides that the ``government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.'' The legislative history of RFRA is both recent and clear. In the case of Employment Division v. Smith, decided in 1990, the Supreme Court rejected two peyote users' claim of a religious right to consume the drug on grounds that the Constitution permits some burdens on religion if the aim of the law is secular and generally applicable. When Congress debated RFRA in 1993, the House and Senate reports showed explicitly that Congress's aim was ``only to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Smith'' and to require courts considering RFRA cases to ``look to free exercise cases decided prior to Smith for guidance.'' No Supreme Court case prior to this time had ever granted corporations religious rights and nothing in RFRA's legislative history suggested that Congress's intent was to do so. Notwithstanding these facts, Judge Gorsuch joined his colleagues to hold that a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs may overcome its employees own consciences and rights to comprehensive health coverage. He relied on an 1871 law called the Dictionary Act, which provided that in certain circumstances, Congress's use of the term ``person'' can also mean businesses, ``unless the context indicates otherwise.'' This reference to context means that Judge Gorsuch had discretion to use history and common sense to reach the conclusion that corporations don't have religious views, but people do, and RFRA was enacted to protect real people's rights. But instead, he took this opportunity to endow corporate entities with religious rights that could help them escape the law in untold circumstances. Let's explore for a moment Judge Gorsuch's belief that judges should always give meaning to the original intent of a law's draftsmen. In this case, what is a corporation and how does it operate? In 1787, there were roughly six non-bank corporations in America, and their powers were severely restricted in the wake of colonists' experiences with the abusive practices of the Crown and royal English corporations. Around the time that Congress passed the Dictionary Act, corporations were harshly regulated by law to achieve specific commercial ends and nothing more. There were legal limits on the capital they could raise. Many could not operate outside their state of incorporation. They were often prohibited from owning property that was not necessary for specific commercial activities. Most were even forbidden to engage in any activity that was not explicitly enumerated in their corporate charters, and a real person could sue to render a corporation's action a legal nullity if it were not expressly in furtherance of the corporation's business mission. The idea that a corporation in this context could exercise fundamental religious rights, much less that its religion should excuse it from complying with duly enacted laws that protect real people, would have been outrageous to the Framers and the Congress that passed the Dictionary Act. Judge Gorsuch knew or should have known the ahistorical nature of his decisions. We have yet to see the full scope and consequences of his vision of a near-unlimited right of corporations to opt out of our laws, but we can imagine the harmful choices and difficult litigation on this point that may lie ahead. I, for one, have deep concerns about any judicial philosophy that bends so far in the direction of corporate interests and completely ignores tens of thousands of real people in the process. For as much as Judge Gorsuch's record shows that he is willing to entertain new or arcane legal theories to reach a better outcome for corporations and the powerful, it is also clear that he will go to no such length to vindicate the rights of minorities, the disabled or workers. One example highlighted during Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing is his record on lawsuits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. The purpose of IDEA is to ensure that students with disabilities receive a public education that is tailored to their special individual needs. In the 2008 case popularly referred to as the Luke P. case, however, Judge Gorsuch ruled against the parents of a severely autistic child who sought reimbursement for the cost of a specialized school because their son was not making appropriate progress in the public school. In denying the parents relief, Gorsuch reinterpreted IDEA to require that public schools need only provide de minimis, or nonzero educational progress to children with disabilities. Not only did Judge Gorsuch go beyond the facts of the case to close any path to relief for the family, but in this and similar cases, he attempted to set a legal precedent for future cases that effectively eviscerated the meaning and protections of IDEA. Fortunately, the Supreme Court intervened. In a rare unanimous decision released, ironically, on the second day of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, the Court rejected Judge Gorsuch's narrow reading of the law. In fact, the Chief Justice did not mince words when it came to Judge Gorsuch's lower bar for schools. He said Judge Gorsuch's model would hardly provide ``an education at all'' for children with disabilities, and that ``receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to `sitting idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to drop out.' '' This stark, unanimous rebuke of Judge Gorsuch's view of the law in the middle of his confirmation hearing was yet another reminder that this nominee is outside of the judicial mainstream. But Judge Gorsuch has not just restricted his reading of the law in the educational context. In TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, a majority of the Tenth Circuit held that a truck driver was wrongfully fired when he drove away from his trailer to find help after being stranded for hours in subzero temperatures in a vehicle with no heat and a rig with failed brakes. Judge Gorsuch disagreed so sharply that he penned a dissent. Under his strict textualist view of the law, the driver was protected from firing for ``refusing'' to operate in dangerous conditions, but the word ``refusing'' could not be interpreted to include driving away to get potentially lifesaving help, rather than freezing to death. Again and again, Judge Gorsuch's record shows he is capable, but either unwilling or unable to give the same benefit of the doubt to average working people as he does to their employers, their landlords and the most powerful among us. Mr. President, Constitutional law is not concerned with easy cases or simple answers. We have constitutional guarantees to inalienable rights because we know that majority rule sometimes gets it wrong, particularly when it comes to the rights of the minority. That is what makes the qualifications for a seat on the Supreme Court fundamentally different from any other Federal or State court in the Nation. A judge's job is to apply precedent, be faithful to the law, and exercise measures of empathy and common sense to dispense justice. A Supreme Court Justice's job is to decide when the law is wrong and must be changed in order to fulfill the promise of the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot perform this function unless the individual Justices bring to it the values and willingness to be the last resort for the powerless when the system fails. They must be able to make unpopular decisions and side against political and cultural majorities. They must be able to reject precedent when the established way of doing things no longer safeguards the fundamental protections to which every American is entitled. They must do this for the least and most derided among us, because if they do not, there is nowhere else to turn. They have the final word on the meaning of the law. I take Judge Gorsuch at his word that he respects the law and approaches this nomination with seriousness and a sense of responsibility. A thoughtful reading of his work as an advocate and a judge reveals that he has a consistent predisposition to favor corporations and the powerful over human beings and the powerless. To be sure, there is nothing inherently wrong when a corporation, or a landlord, or an employer or a President of the United States wins a case in a court of law. The system often works as it should even when it hands new victories to those who seldom lose at anything. But at this moment in the life of our Nation, it is vital that the next Justice of the Supreme Court be willing and able to elevate the rights of the people above the prevailing political view of the wealthiest and most powerful when the two are in conflict. I cannot conclude that Judge Gorsuch meets this standard. Therefore, I will oppose his nomination and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill closes a loophole in the Tax Code that allows corporations to claim tax writeoffs for payments made at the direction of the government to settle investigations into illegal and abusive corporate behavior. Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle out of court with government agencies because it allows all parties to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. While there is nothing wrong with settlements that correct wrongful corporate practices and compensate for the resulting harm caused by a corporation, the Tax Code often permits offending companies to claim a business tax deduction for any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for a violation of the law. The Tax Code on this point is vague, and big businesses exploit this by characterizing settlement penalties as tax-deductible business expenses. Illegal corporate behavior is not an ordinary business activity, and it shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. Yet, according to a 2015 study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, PIRG, corporate settlements over a single 3-year period totaled nearly $80 billion, and corporations could claim business deductions for at least $48 billion of that amount. Moreover, there is no consistent, transparent way to track how these settlements can and will be treated by businesses for tax purposes. The Reed-Grassley bill addresses these problems by amending the Tax Code to require the government and the settling party to reach clear agreements on how settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. It also clarifies which settlement payments are punitive and therefore nondeductible. It increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement that accurately states the tax treatment of amounts to be paid by offending businesses. Last Congress, it was estimated that this legislation would raise $218 million in revenue over a ten-year budget window. When a major corporate scandal breaks national news, Rhode Islanders and all Americans deserve to know that Federal regulators are protecting their interests by handing down punishments that deter future illegal and abusive business practices. That deterrent effect is undermined if corporations can claim a deduction for any penalty and build the cost of breaking the law into their business models. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me again on this legislation and for being a champion for reform in this area. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill closes a loophole in the Tax Code that allows corporations to claim tax writeoffs for payments made at the direction of the government to settle investigations into illegal and abusive corporate behavior. Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle out of court with government agencies because it allows all parties to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. While there is nothing wrong with settlements that correct wrongful corporate practices and compensate for the resulting harm caused by a corporation, the Tax Code often permits offending companies to claim a business tax deduction for any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for a violation of the law. The Tax Code on this point is vague, and big businesses exploit this by characterizing settlement penalties as tax-deductible business expenses. Illegal corporate behavior is not an ordinary business activity, and it shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. Yet, according to a 2015 study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, PIRG, corporate settlements over a single 3-year period totaled nearly $80 billion, and corporations could claim business deductions for at least $48 billion of that amount. Moreover, there is no consistent, transparent way to track how these settlements can and will be treated by businesses for tax purposes. The Reed-Grassley bill addresses these problems by amending the Tax Code to require the government and the settling party to reach clear agreements on how settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. It also clarifies which settlement payments are punitive and therefore nondeductible. It increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement that accurately states the tax treatment of amounts to be paid by offending businesses. Last Congress, it was estimated that this legislation would raise $218 million in revenue over a ten-year budget window. When a major corporate scandal breaks national news, Rhode Islanders and all Americans deserve to know that Federal regulators are protecting their interests by handing down punishments that deter future illegal and abusive business practices. That deterrent effect is undermined if corporations can claim a deduction for any penalty and build the cost of breaking the law into their business models. I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me again on this legislation and for being a champion for reform in this area. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act, which I reintroduce today with Senator Grassley, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Leahy, will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Even after the financial crisis that crippled the 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 fear this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. Today, the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC can fine an institution or individual is limited by statute. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that the reason for the low settlement amount was a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty. 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 Senator Grassley and I are reintroducing finally updates the SEC's civil penalties statute. This bill strives to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum civil monetary penalties permitted by statute, directly linking the size of the maximum 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 give the SEC more options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``tier three,'' 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 addresses the disturbing trend of 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 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those that violate existing Federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Both of these changes would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. Slightly more than half of all U.S. households are invested in the stock market. They deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will give the SEC more tools 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 to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and to deter and crack down on fraud.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act, which I reintroduce today with Senator Grassley, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Leahy, will enhance the ability of securities regulators to protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Even after the financial crisis that crippled the 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 fear this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. Today, the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC can fine an institution or individual is limited by statute. During hearings I held in 2011 in the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Banking Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, the agency had been criticized by a Federal judge for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the SEC in an amount that was a fraction of the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that the reason for the low settlement amount was a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty. 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 Senator Grassley and I are reintroducing finally updates the SEC's civil penalties statute. This bill strives to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum civil monetary penalties permitted by statute, directly linking the size of the maximum 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 give the SEC more options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``tier three,'' 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 addresses the disturbing trend of 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 5 years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those that violate existing Federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. Both of these changes would substantially improve the ability of the SEC's enforcement program to ratchet up penalties for recidivists. Slightly more than half of all U.S. households are invested in the stock market. They deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the tools it needs to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will give the SEC more tools 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 to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and to deter and crack down on fraud.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins, I am introducing legislation that would eliminate the sunset date for U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness--the Council--so that this independent agency can build upon its success in helping to prevent and end homelessness nationally. The Council was established under the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Since that time, it has worked across the Federal Government and private sector to coordinate homeless assistance nationally. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, or HEARTH Act, which I authored and introduced along with Senator Collins and others, expanded the Council's role to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. On June 22, 2010, the Council unveiled this plan, called Opening Doors, which has guided its work to develop and expand on effective strategies across the country to prevent and end homelessness. Since Opening Doors was unveiled, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, reports that overall homelessness has decreased by 14 percent, chronic homelessness by 27 percent, and family homelessness by 23 percent. In addition, we have seen veterans' homelessness drop by 47 percent. This progress is not only a result of the more than $500 million Federal investment in housing and supportive services through programs like HUD-VASH but is also because of the direction the Council provides to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and HUD, as well as public housing agencies administering assistance at the local level. Specifically, the Council helped various partners align their resources, efforts, goals, and measures of success for serving homeless veterans. Under this approach, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, the city of New Orleans, and DeKalb County in Georgia, to name a few, have all declared an end to veterans' homelessness. Yet more work remains. And here, too, the Council is an important part of developing solutions. For instance, nearly 36,000 unaccompanied youth under the age of 25 experienced homelessness in 2016. While some communities have started to develop responses to youth homelessness, it is a complex problem that requires a tailored approach taking into account the local variables of foster care, primary to postsecondary education, housing, and healthcare systems. Finding new ways to deliver and fund assistance to this diverse population is essential, and that is why Senator Collins and I held a hearing in our subcommittee on this matter and worked together to include over $40 million in targeted resources to address youth homelessness in both the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, THUD, appropriations bills. As part of this new funding, the Council will be executing a broader collaborative effort with foster care networks, the juvenile justice community, and education partners to create and find success in coordinated, cost-effective solutions that meet community needs. The Council's expertise in implementing complex Federal programs at the local level will continue to be critical to the success of this initiative. For all of this good work the Council has done and continues to do, it is vital that we keep its doors open. The Council, as the only agency at the federal level charged specifically with addressing homelessness, has helped communities not only reduce homelessness, but it has also helped to save money. We know that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to access expensive health care services and spend more time in incarceration--which are extremely costly to taxpayers, states, and local governments. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``Based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' The Council has helped to build upon these estimated savings by identifying and tailoring cost-effective solutions that reduce the level of health care services, as well as recidivism, for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In fiscal year 2016 alone, the Council's modest $3.5 million budget catalyzed more than $5 billion in combined Federal resources that aim to address homelessness. It develops national strategies that inform the work and improve the cost- effectiveness of programs administered by 19 Federal agencies, and as a result, communities and Sates are able to leverage housing, health, education, and labor funding more strategically and effectively. In our current budgetary environment we need a wise and creative arm to help our communities identify and maximize resources and opportunities where possible, to ensure we are actually addressing homelessness, and not contributing to it. The Council is proof that the government can work and save money in the process, and our bipartisan legislation ensures that the Council's doors remain open until there truly is an end to homelessness nationwide. I thank the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, HousingWorksRI, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, A Way Home America, Community Solutions, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Funders Together to End Homelessness, the True Colors Fund, the National Housing Trust, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, LISC, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, National Network for Youth, LeadingAge, Heartland Alliance, National Housing Conference, the National AIDS Housing Coalition, Covenant House International, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the Forum for Youth Investment, the Housing Assistance Council, Volunteers of America, the Coalition on Human Needs, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, and the National Coalition for the Homeless for their support. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins, I am introducing legislation that would eliminate the sunset date for U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness--the Council--so that this independent agency can build upon its success in helping to prevent and end homelessness nationally. The Council was established under the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Since that time, it has worked across the Federal Government and private sector to coordinate homeless assistance nationally. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, or HEARTH Act, which I authored and introduced along with Senator Collins and others, expanded the Council's role to work with public, nonprofit, and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. On June 22, 2010, the Council unveiled this plan, called Opening Doors, which has guided its work to develop and expand on effective strategies across the country to prevent and end homelessness. Since Opening Doors was unveiled, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, reports that overall homelessness has decreased by 14 percent, chronic homelessness by 27 percent, and family homelessness by 23 percent. In addition, we have seen veterans' homelessness drop by 47 percent. This progress is not only a result of the more than $500 million Federal investment in housing and supportive services through programs like HUD-VASH but is also because of the direction the Council provides to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and HUD, as well as public housing agencies administering assistance at the local level. Specifically, the Council helped various partners align their resources, efforts, goals, and measures of success for serving homeless veterans. Under this approach, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, the city of New Orleans, and DeKalb County in Georgia, to name a few, have all declared an end to veterans' homelessness. Yet more work remains. And here, too, the Council is an important part of developing solutions. For instance, nearly 36,000 unaccompanied youth under the age of 25 experienced homelessness in 2016. While some communities have started to develop responses to youth homelessness, it is a complex problem that requires a tailored approach taking into account the local variables of foster care, primary to postsecondary education, housing, and healthcare systems. Finding new ways to deliver and fund assistance to this diverse population is essential, and that is why Senator Collins and I held a hearing in our subcommittee on this matter and worked together to include over $40 million in targeted resources to address youth homelessness in both the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, THUD, appropriations bills. As part of this new funding, the Council will be executing a broader collaborative effort with foster care networks, the juvenile justice community, and education partners to create and find success in coordinated, cost-effective solutions that meet community needs. The Council's expertise in implementing complex Federal programs at the local level will continue to be critical to the success of this initiative. For all of this good work the Council has done and continues to do, it is vital that we keep its doors open. The Council, as the only agency at the federal level charged specifically with addressing homelessness, has helped communities not only reduce homelessness, but it has also helped to save money. We know that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to access expensive health care services and spend more time in incarceration--which are extremely costly to taxpayers, states, and local governments. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``Based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' The Council has helped to build upon these estimated savings by identifying and tailoring cost-effective solutions that reduce the level of health care services, as well as recidivism, for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In fiscal year 2016 alone, the Council's modest $3.5 million budget catalyzed more than $5 billion in combined Federal resources that aim to address homelessness. It develops national strategies that inform the work and improve the cost- effectiveness of programs administered by 19 Federal agencies, and as a result, communities and Sates are able to leverage housing, health, education, and labor funding more strategically and effectively. In our current budgetary environment we need a wise and creative arm to help our communities identify and maximize resources and opportunities where possible, to ensure we are actually addressing homelessness, and not contributing to it. The Council is proof that the government can work and save money in the process, and our bipartisan legislation ensures that the Council's doors remain open until there truly is an end to homelessness nationwide. I thank the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, HousingWorksRI, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, A Way Home America, Community Solutions, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Funders Together to End Homelessness, the True Colors Fund, the National Housing Trust, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, LISC, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, National Network for Youth, LeadingAge, Heartland Alliance, National Housing Conference, the National AIDS Housing Coalition, Covenant House International, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the Forum for Youth Investment, the Housing Assistance Council, Volunteers of America, the Coalition on Human Needs, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, and the National Coalition for the Homeless for their support. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the deep and growing concerns about Russia's interference in the United States' 2016 Presidential election and the implications of Russia's broader malign activities for our national security. On Monday, we learned from FBI Director Comey that there is an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and whether associates of then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump were communicating with Moscow. It is absolutely essential that Congress and the American people get clear and comprehensive answers on, first, what happened; second, what are Russia's strategic goals and intentions for further interference in democratic processes here and in Europe; and third, what we need to do to counter this threat going forward. That is why I have repeatedly called for an independent, transparent, special counsel to investigate the legal aspects of Russian efforts to influence our election and a bipartisan select committee within the Senate to look at all aspects of Russia's destabilizing activities here and around the world. I am concerned that the politicization of the issue of Russia's interference in our elections and its hostile actions against Western institutions and values is diverting our attention from what otherwise should be recognized as a clear and potent threat to America's security. We need to focus on what is critical: Russia is attacking American democracy as part of an even broader assault on our cornerstone NATO alliance and the post-Cold War international order. The threat posed by Russia's actions is not merely ``fake news,'' as serious as that phenomenon may be, but a very real, very strategic threat to U.S. interests. Russia is testing America and the transatlantic community across multiple fronts. Today, I will highlight just how broad and fundamental this threat from Russia really is. What should be clear to everyone is that last year Russia engaged in a systematic and strategic effort to influence the U.S. Presidential election. While we do not know all the details of Russia's involvement, we know that in January the U.S. intelligence community--including the CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or the ODNI--issued its assessment that Russia engaged in bold and unprecedented efforts to influence and undermine trust in the U.S. Presidential election. Among the January intelligence report's findings were the following: first, that President Putin, in their words, ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.'' The intelligence community also found that ``Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.'' The report further found that Russia's influence campaign was multifaceted and included covert intelligence operations such as cyber espionage against U.S. political organizations like the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. It combined the release of hacked information with overt propaganda efforts through Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media actors, or, as they are referred to, trolls. Another key finding was that Russia's influence efforts in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election reflect--in the words of the intelligence community--``a significant escalation'' compared to previous information operations. The intelligence community also warned that these Russian activities, including ``cyber-enabled disclosure operations'' likely represent a ``New Normal'' in Russian conduct toward the United States and our allies and partners. The intelligence community further assessed that Russia will use the lessons learned from the 2016 U.S. Presidential election to influence future elections in the United States and overseas. We do not have to look very far for evidence supporting this conclusion. Russia is alleged to have targeted an April 2016 referendum in the Netherlands on a partnership agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, which was overwhelmingly rejected by Dutch voters. This year, Russia is openly intervening in France's Presidential election to be held in April. For example, Russia has loaned tens of millions of dollars to the far-right National Front Party in France, whose leader, Marine Le Pen, has defended Russia's annexation of Crimea and criticized international sanctions against Russia. Germany, which holds parliamentary elections in September, has also been targeted by Russian hackers and trolls--straight out of the Kremlin playbook we saw used here last year. Russia is attempting to steadily erode the integrity and western orientation of multiple Eastern European countries through a variety of state and state- controlled or state-influenced activities. These coordinated and focused Russian operations threaten to undermine the European cohesion which underpins the post-Cold War international order. This pattern of Russian interference will only intensify with time if it goes unchallenged. Russia's malign activities also threaten our core security relationships with our transatlantic allies and partners. The NATO alliance has been the bedrock of our security relationship with our European allies. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, countries in Central and Eastern Europe have aspired to integrate more closely with the West, whether militarily through NATO membership or economically within the European Union, or both. But President Putin rejects the post-Cold War international order and seeks to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence over his immediate neighbors by weakening democracy, collective security, and economic cooperation across the region. In pursuit of this strategic goal, Putin has demonstrated a willingness to use all tools at his disposal, including cyber hacking, disinformation, propaganda, economic leverage, corruption, and even military force, to violate the sovereignty of Russia's neighbors and undermine support for their further integration into Europe. Since 2008, in neighboring Georgia, Russia has occupied two regions and recognized their independence, which the international community widely condemns as a violation of Georgia's territorial integrity. Georgia's aspirations since the 2008 Bucharest Summit to join the NATO Alliance have been on hold. In Ukraine, Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing support to Russian-led separatists in eastern Ukraine are part of Putin's strategy of destabilizing the Kyiv government and blocking Ukraine's further integration westward. Putin has repeatedly used influence operations to hide the presence of ``little green men'' on Ukrainian soil, to spread disinformation about Ukrainian political leaders, and to influence financially corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs to support Russia. Putin is also using propaganda and other activities to try to break western unity in support of the United States and EU sanctions intended to pressure Russia to comply with its commitments under the Minsk agreements for ending the conflict in Ukraine. It is critically important to maintain, and potentially strengthen, these sanctions to change Russia's aggressive behavior and get to a peaceful political settlement to end the fighting in Ukraine. In Montenegro, it appears that Russia has added political assassination as a potential weapon to block an Eastern European country from pursuing membership in NATO. Last month, the British press reported that ``Russian nationalists'' under the direction of Russian intelligence officials plotted to assassinate then-Prime Minister Djukanovic during Montenegro's elections in October. According to these reports, Montenegrin authorities foiled the assassination attempt just hours before the plot was to be carried out. This attempted coup d'etat represents a new and dangerous level of interference by Russia to discourage Montenegro and others from further integrating with the West. As some of my colleagues have read in the February 14th New York Times article, Russia has fielded a missile system that violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty--a ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear missile that threatens all of NATO. The INF Treaty was signed by President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. This landmark treaty dramatically reduced Cold War nuclear tensions by eliminating an entire class of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles that could have struck Moscow or Berlin in less than 10 minutes. Now Russia has moved nuclear-capable, short-range, ground-launched Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. The Iskander missile's range threatens German borders-- something not seen since the 1980s. The Iskander deployment runs counter to a detente that has been in place since 1989, when President Bush reduced U.S. conventional forces in Europe--and Russia did the same--in order to relieve destabilizing tension in the region and lessen the risk of escalation or miscalculation. Furthermore, Russian aggression goes beyond the violations of the INF Treaty and the Iskander missile. During the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Russia practiced snap nuclear exercises to test the readiness of its Armed Forces to send a signal that there was a nuclear backstop to the invasion. More disturbingly, by invading Ukraine, Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum, a multilateral commitment in which Ukraine and three other former Soviet states pledged to transfer to Russia the nuclear weapons they retained after the collapse of the Soviet Union in return for Russian recognition of their sovereignty. Besides unilaterally reneging on its Budapest commitments, in 2014 Russia has pulled out of the DOD and DOE--Department of Defense and Department of Energy--Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs, which secured nuclear materials at storage sites and national borders. Russia has some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear materials in the world that are vulnerable to insider threats. In 2016, Russia suspended its participation in the agreement with the United States to convert 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium for use as fuel for reactors. Since the very beginning of the Cold War, nonproliferation and arms control agreements between Russia and the United States have always received a high priority from both countries, regardless of how relations in other areas went up or down. Russia's recent actions call into question whether this can continue. Russian actions in Syria pose a further challenge to stability in the Middle East and the broader international community. Russia's military operations to prop up the murderous Assad regime belies Moscow's claim that it intervened to fight violent extremists, including ISIS and al- Qaida. Russia has provided significant political, economic, and military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even as he has slaughtered tens of thousands of Syrian civilians and used chemical weapons against his own people. Russia has repeatedly exercised its veto power in the U.N. Security Council on behalf of the Syrian regime in defiance of international standards and U.S.-led peace efforts, and, just last month, Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking to punish Syria for using chemical weapons. For all of these reasons, we must recognize that Russia's alarming interference in our election is only one aspect of a much broader and dangerous threat to our core national security interests. Russia's malign behavior needs to be investigated fully and in a manner that is free of political considerations. We need answers to key questions, including: What are Russia's overall strategic security goals, and how do Russian influence activities in Europe and the United States advance those goals? What are the tools of Russia's influence? How has Russia used, or continues to use, those tools in influencing campaigns in Europe? How do Russian activities in Europe compare to what was evident in the U.S. Presidential elections last year? How has Russia used influence activities in concert with other unconventional warfare tactics and operational activities--for example, to support proxy forces in Ukraine and elsewhere? What is the threat these Russian influence activities pose to U.S. democratic institutions? To NATO? To the European Union? To the post- Cold War liberal order and value system? What are the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the United States and European countries that Russia is successfully exploiting and magnifying? Finally, how can the U.S. Government counter and deter Russia's influence activities, and what capabilities, structures, and other resources are needed for these purposes? An investigation of these questions would best be conducted by an independent, transparent, outside body appointed in a bipartisan manner. However, if Congress cannot reach consensus to make that happen, then, as a ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I intend to work with the chairman to undertake the necessary effort within the committee and across the Senate. I believe we can work in a bipartisan fashion on this critical threat to our national security. I look forward to shedding light on this issue and examining what we need to do as a country to defend ourselves against and deter Russian malign influence. As a final point, we are focused, of course, on what happened in 2016--and it is a topic of daily discussions and newspaper articles-- but one of the most sobering factors is that we have an election in process right now for 2018. If it demonstrates the same interference, Russia could have an effect on that election. Indeed, there are indications that they are actually probing State election systems--the names of voters, how the States calculate and vote. Nothing has been established that would suggest they attempted to influence that activity, but the simple probing suggests that we have much to do to protect ourselves going forward--indeed, as much as looking back and finding out what went on in the 2016 election. For these reasons, and many more, we have to work together, as I suggested and encouraged, in a bipartisan way to get at the answers-- not just to look backward but to protect ourselves going forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I voted to support Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster retaining the grade of lieutenant general while serving as the National Security Advisor to the President. To be clear, this vote was to permit Lieutenant General McMaster to remain in the grade of lieutenant general while serving in this position. It is not to confirm him as the National Security Advisor. Lieutenant General McMaster was appointed by the President to a position that does not require Senate confirmation. Indeed, he is already serving as National Security Advisor. The only remaining question is whether he will serve in the military grade of lieutenant general on Active Duty. The position of National Security Advisor is one of the most important in our government. Not only does it require someone capable of providing timely and thoughtful counsel on national security matters, it entails coordinating advice and action across multiple executive agencies with responsibilities in the national security arena. Further, it necessitates a large measure of independence and knowledge. This is not the first time we have considered an Active-Duty military officer for this position. Lieutenant General McMaster would be the third such officer to so serve, following Admiral John Poindexter under President Reagan and General Colin Powell under President George Herbert Walker Bush. Many of my colleagues are rightly concerned about this and question whether it would be more appropriate for him to retire and serve in a civilian capacity. While I strongly believe it would be better for Lieutenant General McMaster to retire and avoid all perceptions of politicizing the military, he believes that serving in uniform will help him remain apolitical in service to this Administration. He can expect Congress to hold him to his word that wearing the uniform in this position will serve to keep the military above the political fray. Some Members have expressed concern about the proper functioning of our national security apparatus and clear chains of command with respect to military advice provided to the President under this arrangement. While Lieutenant General McMaster would be the National Security Advisor to the President, providing day-to-day advice and counsel on all national security matters, General Joseph Dunford, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would continue to be the ``principal military advisor'' to the President, while Secretary Mattis is the ``principal assistant to the President in all matters related to the Department of Defense.'' As Senator Sam Nunn described the issue with respect to the nomination of then-Lieutenant General Powell, in Senator Nunn's words, ``A military officer who knows that his next promotion depends on the Secretary of Defense and the top generals and admirals in the Pentagon may simply not, over a period of time, be able to make completely objective decisions based on the fact that his promotion, his pay, and his future depend on one department, and that one department is an active player in the government.'' This question centers on Lieutenant General McMaster's ability to retain the necessary measure of independence as he discharges his duties to the President. I ultimately believe, after careful consideration, that Lieutenant General McMaster will be able to balance these roles and provide advice and direction designed to further the Nation's interests and not simply those of the Department of Defense or indeed, to advance his own ambitions. It is also my hope that Lieutenant General McMaster will be a moderating influence on a White House that desperately needs talented, informed, and professional advisers. This Administration has proposed a reorganization of the National Security Council structure that excludes the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from meetings unless specifically invited. Lieutenant General McMaster assured the Committee that General Dunford and the DNI will be invited to attend any meeting of the Principals Committee of the National Security Council, and I appreciated that assurance. The Trump Administration reorganization also added the President's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, to the National Security Council. This politicization of the NSC is unsound, and I think without merit. The law creating the National Security Council is purposeful in trying to create a managerial and policy process that develops the best national security policy for our Nation. The idea that a partisan political operative like Mr. Bannon should serve on the National Security Council runs counter to longstanding practice, and must, in my view, be reversed. It is my hope that Lieutenant General McMaster has the vast experience and knowledge and the requisite temperament and independence to provide the national security expertise that is sorely needed in the White House. Moreover, Lieutenant General McMaster must have the support and the backing of the President so it is clear that he runs the National Security Council on the President's behalf. That support is not yet apparent. According to Politico just a few days ago, the President overruled Lieutenant General McMaster's advice and chose to listen to Mr. Bannon and the President's son-in-law, Mr. Kushner, in regard to the retention of a key intelligence analyst who had been brought in by Major General Flynn. This is a worrisome sign that Lieutenant General McMaster might have a title and responsibilities but not the authority he needs. I indeed hope he has that authority and exercises it wisely. I would also like to note that there have been reports about decisions Lieutenant General McMaster made as Commanding General at Fort Benning in allowing lieutenants under his command to attend schools while being investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. I want to assure my colleagues that the Committee held a closed and classified executive session with Lieutenant General McMaster present to answer all our questions. The Committee thoroughly considered the facts and voted to confirm his third star by a strong bipartisan vote. We are again taking a rather extraordinary step in voting on an Active-Duty military officer to serve as National Security Advisor for the first time in 25 years, but these are extraordinary times. Our Nation faces complex national security challenges, and 3 months into a new administration, we are on a second National Security Advisor already. We see a disorganized National Security Council and an enormous number of vacancies in the State and Defense Departments. Lieutenant General McMaster has the opportunity to bring order to the chaos. Therefore, I believe the Senate should confirm his grade of Lieutenant General while he serves as National Security Advisor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits 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. Over 10 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 order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, 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 1,500 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 initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as 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 others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be 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's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years. These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create 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 taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years 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 that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise 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 nonsecret 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 is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting 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 am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits 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. Over 10 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 order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, 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 1,500 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 initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as 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 others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be 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's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years. These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create 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 taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years 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 that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise 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 nonsecret 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 is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting 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 rise today in opposition to the nomination of Ms. Seema Verma to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. As a $1 trillion agency with oversight over Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, as well as State health insurance marketplaces, CMS is providing affordable health insurance to 100 million Americans, including nearly half a million Rhode Islanders. Given the responsibility that this post entails of ensuring access to health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens, coupled with a lack of commitment to fighting back against proposals by this administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to dismantle these programs, I cannot support Ms. Verma's nomination to be CMS Administrator. CMS is responsible for a key aspect of the Affordable Care Act--the health insurance marketplaces--which provide an avenue for all consumers to shop for the health insurance options that fit their needs and connect consumers with tax credits and subsidies that make the coverage affordable. President Trump and his new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price are adamant about repealing the ACA and rolling back these benefits. In her confirmation hearing, Ms. Verma was asked multiple times to commit to protecting the ACA for the millions of Americans who were able to access coverage for the first time because of the law, but she would not do so. This, to me, is unacceptable. CMS also works with States and other agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the plans offered on the exchanges are not only affordable but also provide real coverage for when it is most needed. I am concerned with Ms. Verma's beliefs about what health insurance coverage should look like. During her confirmation hearing, she spoke at length about providing consumers more choices about their healthcare. Yet she opposes many of the protections the ACA provides for consumers. For example, she implied that she thought maternity care should be optional. It seems to me that for many families, they would be left with the choice to either pay for maternity care entirely out-of-pocket--all the while paying premiums and copays to the insurance company--or to go without care at all. I don't think these are the kinds of choices we should be imposing on families. Turning my attention to Medicaid for a minute, I am deeply concerned about the Republican proposals to fundamentally change Medicaid and shift costs to States and to consumers. These proposals aren't new. Year after year, Republicans--often under the leadership of then- Congressman, now-HHS Secretary Tom Price--have proposed block-granting Medicaid, cutting the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. While Ms. Verma is not yet confirmed, she did express support in her confirmation hearing for this very concept--block-granting or capping Medicaid spending. Just this week, we saw a new version of this proposal, which simply delays cuts to Medicaid until 2020. In my opinion, this is just a veiled attempt to help gain support for the effort now and then turn around and decimate Medicaid in a few years. In my home State of Rhode Island, nearly 300,000 Rhode Islanders access healthcare through Medicaid. That is about one-third of our population, roughly. That is a significant number for a small State like Rhode Island. Let's break down that number to see who would be impacted by these across-the-board cuts to Medicaid. One out of four children in Rhode Island gets care from Medicaid and half of the births in the State are financed through Medicaid. One in two Rhode Islanders with disabilities are covered by Medicaid, and 60 percent of nursing home residents in the State get their care from Medicaid. Think about what would happen if this funding is cut--and that is the trajectory of the Republican proposals--States would have to decide, among these populations, who will get health care, children or the elderly in nursing homes, the disabled or other Medicaid recipients. If States try to make up the difference, that would result in cuts elsewhere, such as education and infrastructure. Indeed, given the demands for health care, given the tensions between seniors and nursing homes, and children needing care, the States will try their best to pull from other areas. What is the next biggest area of State expenditure? Education. Now you will have pressure on State education budgets. Higher education particularly will be pressured. All of this will be the ripple effect from these proposed cuts to Medicaid. And make no mistake, when Ms. Verma and my colleagues talk about converting Medicaid to a block grant program or capping spending, it is not about flexibility for the States, it is about reducing the Federal commitment to providing funding to the States. Lastly, I am concerned about Ms. Verma's ability to safeguard Medicare for our seniors. Over 200,000 Rhode Islanders access care through Medicare, a benefit they have worked for and earned over their entire careers. I believe Medicare is essential to the quality of life for Rhode Island's seniors and for seniors across the country, and indeed for the children and families of these seniors. In fact, I supported the ACA because it made key improvements to Medicare that strengthened its long-term solvency and increased benefits, such as closing the prescription drug doughnut hole and eliminating cost- sharing for preventive services such as cancer screenings. Over 15,000 Rhode Islanders saved $14 million on prescription drugs in 2015, an average of $912 per beneficiary. In the same year, over 92,000 Rhode Islanders took advantage of free preventive services, representing over 76 percent of the beneficiaries. Repealing the ACA means repealing these benefits for seniors and shortening the life of the Medicare trust fund by over a decade. Unfortunately, Ms. Verma has little to no experience working with Medicare, and in her hearing and written responses to questions, she appeared to have very little to no familiarity with major aspects of Medicare. In her confirmation hearing and accompanying documents, she simply has not proven herself to be an effective advocate for protecting these earned benefits for our seniors. We need an Administrator for CMS who will work to safeguard health care coverage for children, seniors, and people with disabilities, who will seek to strengthen Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, and our entire healthcare system. For the reasons I have outlined, along with other reasons some of my colleagues have raised, Ms. Verma, in my opinion, is not up to this task. As such, I will oppose the nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I request the ability to yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Senator Wyden.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act of 2017 along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner. 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 why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cyber security 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. Many investors may be surprised to learn that board directors who participated in the National Association of Corporate Directors, NACD, roundtable discussions on cyber security late in 2013 admitted that ``the lack of adequate knowledge of information technology risk has made it challenging for them to `effectively oversee management's cybersecurity activities.' '' More recently, in Deloitte's 10th Global Risk Management Survey of Financial Services Institutions, published this month, 42 percent of respondents considered their institution to be less effective in managing cybersecurity. And according to the 2016- 2017 NACD Public Company Governance Survey, ``fifty-nine percent of respondents reported that they find it challenging to oversee cyber risk, and only 19 percent of respondents said that their boards possess a high level of knowledge about cybersecurity.'' Indeed, Yahoo in its most recent annual report, which was filed with the SEC last week, disclosed that ``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 are on the rise. Indeed, 2016 was a recordbreaking year for data breaches, which increased 40 percent from the prior year to 1,093 breaches according to the Identity Theft Resource Center. Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cyber security 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. 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. It is through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective that I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on technology and the Internet. For example, when he was Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, appeared before the Armed Services Committee in 2015 and testified that ``cyber threats to the U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity of impact.'' He further said that ``[b]ecause of our heavy dependence on the Internet, nearly all information communication technologies and I.T. networks and systems will be perpetually at risk.'' Indeed, retired Army GEN Keith Alexander, who is the former commander of the United States Cyber Command and former Director of the National Security Agency, appeared before the Armed Services Committee this month and stated that ``while the primary responsibility of government is to defend the nation, the private sector also shares responsibility in creating the partnership necessary to make the defense of our nation possible. Neither the government nor the private sector can capably protect their systems and networks without extensive and close cooperation.'' With mounting cyber threats and concerns over the capabilities of corporate directors, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cyber security before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step toward that goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors are prioritizing cyber security. I thank Harvard Law School professor John Coates, MIT professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, and the Consumer Federation of America for their support, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, and me in supporting this legislation.