Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to continue its executive business meeting.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in room 428A Russel Senate Office building to conduct a roundtable entitled ``The Impact of Mandatory E-Verify on America's Small Businesses.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 12 p.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, July 1 is less than 7 weeks away, and unless we act the interest rate on need-based student loans will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Student loan debt is second only to mortgage debt for American families. Now is not the time to add to student loan debt by allowing the interest rate on need-based student loans to double. I have worked with Chairman Harkin, Leader Reid, and many of my colleagues to develop a fully offset, 2-year extension of the current student loan interest rate. Instead of charging low- and moderate- income students more for their student loans, the Student Loan Affordability Act will keep rates where they are while closing loopholes in the Federal Tax Code. We should take up this legislation and pass it without delay. I know many of my colleagues, including myself, are working on longer term solutions that more effectively reflect market rates--but my concern is, frankly, that we will run up against this July 1 deadline and we will not have the long-term solution in place. We have to do something. That is why I urge us to pick up this legislation as quickly as possible. Our first priority must be to reassure students and families that the interest rate will not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. We have to do that. Then we can work toward a longer term solution. We also owe it to them to commit to a full and thoughtful process for devising this longer term solution, to develop an approach that will set interest rates and terms and conditions on all student loans that will be more reflective of market rates, but also more beneficial to students and their families who are borrowing this money. Senator Durbin and I have put forward a long-term proposal that would set student loan interest rates based on the actual cost of operating the program so the Federal Government would not be offering student loans at a profit. There are other long-term proposals on the table. Some of them, such as the one reported out of the Education and the Workforce Committee in the House today, could actually leave students worse off than they would be if the rates were to double. We need to take the time to fully consider comprehensive solutions to our student loan debt crisis-- solutions that will make college more affordable, not less so. Rather than rushing to overhaul the Federal student loan program without fully considering the impact on students and college affordability, the Student Loan Affordability Act will secure low interest rates until Congress can act on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Without swift congressional action, more than 7 million students will have to pay an estimated additional $1,000 for each loan. These are the students who need the help the most. Sixty percent of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes of less than $60,000, while 80 percent of independent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes below $40,000. Unlike Republican proposals that would balance the budget on the backs of students by charging them higher interest rates or make students vulnerable to exorbitant interest rates in the future, this legislation which we are proposing will help ensure that college remains within reach for students who rely on Federal loans to pay for their education. This legislation is fully paid for. Specifically, the pay-fors would be limiting the use of tax-deferred retirement accounts as a complicated estate planning tool, closing a corporate offshore tax loophole by restricting ``earnings stripping'' by expatriated entities, and closing an oil-and-gas industry tax loophole by treating oil from tar sands the same as other petroleum products. We should not be collecting additional revenue from students when we can eliminate wasteful spending in the Tax Code, and we should not allow--not allow--the interest rate to double on July 1. I hope all my colleagues will support, as the first step, the 2-year extension until we can truly come up with a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to long-term student lending in the United States.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business after Senator Graham has completed his remarks.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, Senator Chambliss be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. First, Mr. President, let me rise to commend Senator Murray for her extraordinary leadership on the Budget Committee and in so many other ways in the Senate. She did a remarkable job in bringing together a budget that responds to the urgent need we see in the United States today to create jobs, to strengthen the economic recovery and, in fact, to provide more momentum to this recovery, much more. In my State of Rhode Island, despite certain gains, we are still at roughly 9 percent unemployment. This is unacceptable. We have to do more. The first step on that path is to move this budget to conference. That is what Senator Murray has spoken about, and that is what is so critical. Fifty-three days ago, under her leadership, the Senate passed a budget. The budget invested $100 billion in a targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly. And that is what my constituents need. Indeed, when I go back to Rhode Island that is what people are asking about: Where are the jobs? The budget would begin, in this jobs and infrastructure package, to repair public roads, bridges, and help prepare workers for the 21st century. All of these things are essential to our present economic need for job creation, our future productivity, and our future ability to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy. Our budget path, as laid out by Senator Murray, would end the economically damaging sequester and make the tough and balanced choices we need for sound fiscal policies. Now the House Republicans also passed a budget. The next step in regular order is to go to conference. Admittedly, the House Republican budget stands in stark contrast to our budget, and it is clear we have a lot of work to do to reach an agreement. For example, the House Republican budget calls for a total of $4.6 trillion in cuts, it voucherizes Medicare, it would leave the sequester in place, and it calls for tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans. I believe these and other choices in the House Republican budget would be a very bad deal for the people of Rhode Island. These are the kinds of differences that must be and can only be resolved effectively in conference. Again, the first step to do that is to appoint our conferees, to go to conference, and to begin the difficult discussions and negotiations to provide the American public the answers they are looking for. So it is past time we move to conference with the House. And I hope there is a real chance that Senate and House Democrats can negotiate a bipartisan agreement with our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives, and with our Republican colleagues in the Senate that will move the country forward. Unfortunately, despite the insistence over months and months and months by Republicans in the House and in the Senate that we go to regular order, that we pass a budget--that was the biggest problem they were talking about for many months, last year and the year before. Now here we are looking for regular order, and they are looking the other way and block us from moving forward and conferencing the Senate and House budgets. That can't go on. We have to get to conference. We have to take the next step. We can't delay. We have 11.7 million Americans out of work and looking for jobs. We have to address the sequester. As Senator Murray just said, yesterday the Secretary of Defense announced hundreds of thousands of civilian personnel will be furloughed, civilian personnel that support from our military forces. That will not only disrupt their lives, which is the first great toll, but it will also disrupt the efficiency and the ability of the Department of Defense to fully and capably carry out its mission. These are critical issues. We have to make sure, again, that the full faith and credit of the United States is not jeopardized by another manufactured crisis over the debt ceiling, which is once again on the horizon. We have to deal very soon with all of these issues. The logical and appropriate step is to go to conference. We have a lot of work to do. Let me also say I am encouraged that I have heard that Leader Reid is prepared to call up for a vote the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is critical because a well-regulated marketplace is not only good for consumers, it is good for companies. That is something that could add to this economic recovery, this certainty, this knowledge that consumers will have the information they need. Also, I presume and hope that very soon we will have a vote with respect to the pending doubling of the student loan interest rate. Last year we avoided this by pushing it forward a year. We have another deadline facing us July 1. We have to make sure students don't face another crippling increase in interest rates they pay on student loans. Student loans are a huge burden on the generations that are coming up. In fact, it could delay our economic progress by a decade or more as students can't buy homes and form households because they are saddled with the debt. So we have to work on that too. We just can't lurch from crisis to crisis. The first thing to do, the immediate thing we should do, is to invoke regular order. Let's go ahead, let's go to conference. Let's start dealing with the issues that affect the people of America. Let's start serving their primary concerns--creating jobs and a stable economy--and doing that through regular order and the procedures that we have adopted and used for decades. I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 954

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act with Senator Durbin to offer a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates. Congress must take swift action to prevent the doubling of the interest rate on need-based loans on July 1, 54 days away. We also need a new mechanism for setting interest rates on all federal student loans for the long term so that students and taxpayers are protected, and we need to take the time to get it right. In April, I introduced the Student Loan Affordability Act to keep the rate on subsidized loans at 3.4 percent for the next 2 years. This would give Congress time to debate a long-term solution as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Today, I am introducing legislation with Senator Durbin and Congressman Tierney and Congressman Courtney to overhaul the mechanism for setting the interest rates on federal student loans. Instead of setting a numerical rate in law, which quickly becomes out of sync with the economic and interest rate environment, or locking borrowers into a fixed rate with no opportunity to refinance when rates drop, our proposal will offer adjustable rate loans for students and parents with the protection of a cap on the maximum interest rate that could be charged during periods of high interest rates. In today's low interest rate environment, the fixed rates for student loans are too high, resulting in student loans generating a profit for the Federal Government. If we would have maintained the variable rate for student loans that was in law before 2006, the interest rate for students in repayment on their loans would be 2.39 percent this year. At today's fixed rates, they will pay 3.4 percent for subsidized loans and 6.8 percent for unsubsidized loans. The Federal Government provides student loans to increase the number of Americans who attain college degrees, not to generate revenue. Yet, according to CBO estimates, the Federal Government will save more than 36 cents for every dollar lent in the student loan programs for fiscal year 2013. CBO projects that the student loan programs will continue to generate savings on the backs of students through fiscal year 2023. We need to change this. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will offer adjustable rate loans for students and parents with a cap on the maximum interest rate that could be charged to protect borrowers during periods of high interest rates. Interest rates for need-based, subsidized loans will be capped at 6.8 percent. Rates for unsubsidized and parent loans will be capped at 8.25 percent. Rates will be set every year based on the 91-day Treasury bill plus a percentage determined by the Secretary of Education to cover program administration and borrower benefits. The Secretary must set the rate so that the student loan programs are revenue neutral. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will also correct an inequity for undergraduate students who qualify for subsidized loans. Currently, a dependent undergraduate student can borrow up to $31,000 total. However, the maximum amount that can be subsidized is $23,000, which means that needy students often have to resort to more expensive unsubsidized loans to finance a part or the remainder of their education costs. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will allow borrowers with demonstrated financial need to have up to the full loan limit in the lower cost subsidized program. Finally, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will allow borrowers with high fixed-rate federal student loans to refinance those loans into the new variable rate loan with a cap. This could be a real help to borrowers trying to make ends meet, considering that, under current conditions, rates calculated under a bill would be much lower than the fixed rates for unsubsidized loans 6.8 percent, PLUS loans made under the old bank-based program, 8.5 percent, and PLUS loans made through the Federal Direct Loan program 7.9 percent. We need a multi-faceted approach to solving our student loan debt crisis, which reports from the Federal Reserve and others show is a drag on our economy. We cannot allow this generation of Americans to flounder, unable to buy a home or a car or secure credit or start a family under the weight of student debt. We need to keep rates low in the short term--that means taking quick action to keep the rate from doubling in July. It also means over the long-term, setting rates in a way that does not add to the growth of student debt. I encourage our colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in cosponsoring the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act to put in place a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates that is fair to students and taxpayers. I also urge our colleagues to support taking immediate steps to reassure students and families that the rate on subsidized loans will not double this July.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act with Senator Durbin to offer a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates. Congress must take swift action to prevent the doubling of the interest rate on need-based loans on July 1, 54 days away. We also need a new mechanism for setting interest rates on all federal student loans for the long term so that students and taxpayers are protected, and we need to take the time to get it right. In April, I introduced the Student Loan Affordability Act to keep the rate on subsidized loans at 3.4 percent for the next 2 years. This would give Congress time to debate a long-term solution as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Today, I am introducing legislation with Senator Durbin and Congressman Tierney and Congressman Courtney to overhaul the mechanism for setting the interest rates on federal student loans. Instead of setting a numerical rate in law, which quickly becomes out of sync with the economic and interest rate environment, or locking borrowers into a fixed rate with no opportunity to refinance when rates drop, our proposal will offer adjustable rate loans for students and parents with the protection of a cap on the maximum interest rate that could be charged during periods of high interest rates. In today's low interest rate environment, the fixed rates for student loans are too high, resulting in student loans generating a profit for the Federal Government. If we would have maintained the variable rate for student loans that was in law before 2006, the interest rate for students in repayment on their loans would be 2.39 percent this year. At today's fixed rates, they will pay 3.4 percent for subsidized loans and 6.8 percent for unsubsidized loans. The Federal Government provides student loans to increase the number of Americans who attain college degrees, not to generate revenue. Yet, according to CBO estimates, the Federal Government will save more than 36 cents for every dollar lent in the student loan programs for fiscal year 2013. CBO projects that the student loan programs will continue to generate savings on the backs of students through fiscal year 2023. We need to change this. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will offer adjustable rate loans for students and parents with a cap on the maximum interest rate that could be charged to protect borrowers during periods of high interest rates. Interest rates for need-based, subsidized loans will be capped at 6.8 percent. Rates for unsubsidized and parent loans will be capped at 8.25 percent. Rates will be set every year based on the 91-day Treasury bill plus a percentage determined by the Secretary of Education to cover program administration and borrower benefits. The Secretary must set the rate so that the student loan programs are revenue neutral. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will also correct an inequity for undergraduate students who qualify for subsidized loans. Currently, a dependent undergraduate student can borrow up to $31,000 total. However, the maximum amount that can be subsidized is $23,000, which means that needy students often have to resort to more expensive unsubsidized loans to finance a part or the remainder of their education costs. The Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will allow borrowers with demonstrated financial need to have up to the full loan limit in the lower cost subsidized program. Finally, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act will allow borrowers with high fixed-rate federal student loans to refinance those loans into the new variable rate loan with a cap. This could be a real help to borrowers trying to make ends meet, considering that, under current conditions, rates calculated under a bill would be much lower than the fixed rates for unsubsidized loans 6.8 percent, PLUS loans made under the old bank-based program, 8.5 percent, and PLUS loans made through the Federal Direct Loan program 7.9 percent. We need a multi-faceted approach to solving our student loan debt crisis, which reports from the Federal Reserve and others show is a drag on our economy. We cannot allow this generation of Americans to flounder, unable to buy a home or a car or secure credit or start a family under the weight of student debt. We need to keep rates low in the short term--that means taking quick action to keep the rate from doubling in July. It also means over the long-term, setting rates in a way that does not add to the growth of student debt. I encourage our colleagues to join Senator Durbin and me in cosponsoring the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act to put in place a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates that is fair to students and taxpayers. I also urge our colleagues to support taking immediate steps to reassure students and families that the rate on subsidized loans will not double this July.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Workforce Investments through Local Libraries Act or the WILL Act with Senator Cochran. During these challenging economic times, our one-stop system has been stretched to the limit. Stepping in to help have been our public libraries, which have always been a key access point for people looking for employment or looking to make a career change. According to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, 30 million Americans used a library computer to help address their career and employment needs in 2009. The Employment and Training Administration and the Institute of Museum and Library Services have developed a partnership to highlight effective practices and encourage collaboration between the workforce investment system and public libraries, but more needs to be done. There are more than four times as many libraries as one-stop centers in high unemployment counties. We could greatly expand the reach of the workforce investment system by fully integrating public libraries into the delivery system and providing them with the resources they need to better assist Americans in finding work. The Workforce Investments through Local Libraries, WILL, Act will strengthen the connection between the public library system and the one-stop system to better serve job seekers. The WILL Act will give library users access to workforce activities and information related to training services and employment opportunities, including resume development, job bank web searches, literacy services, and workshops on career information. The goal of the WILL Act is to enable libraries to access Workforce Investment Act resources to continue to provide job search support in communities all across America. Specifically, the WILL Act amends the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to: include library representation on state and local workforce investment boards; ensure the coordination of employment, training, and literacy services carried out by public libraries as part of the state workforce investment plan; recognize public libraries as an allowable ``One-Stop'' partner; authorize new demonstration and pilot projects to establish employment resources in public libraries; and encourage the Employment and Training Administration to collaborate with other federal agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, to leverage and expand access to workforce development resources. To get Americans back to work, we need to leverage all of our community assets. Public libraries play a vital role in providing access to information, technology, support, and other essential resources to help Americans find good jobs and build successful careers. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cochran and me in cosponsoring the WILL Act and to support its inclusion in the effort to renew the Workforce Investment Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Workforce Investments through Local Libraries Act or the WILL Act with Senator Cochran. During these challenging economic times, our one-stop system has been stretched to the limit. Stepping in to help have been our public libraries, which have always been a key access point for people looking for employment or looking to make a career change. According to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, 30 million Americans used a library computer to help address their career and employment needs in 2009. The Employment and Training Administration and the Institute of Museum and Library Services have developed a partnership to highlight effective practices and encourage collaboration between the workforce investment system and public libraries, but more needs to be done. There are more than four times as many libraries as one-stop centers in high unemployment counties. We could greatly expand the reach of the workforce investment system by fully integrating public libraries into the delivery system and providing them with the resources they need to better assist Americans in finding work. The Workforce Investments through Local Libraries, WILL, Act will strengthen the connection between the public library system and the one-stop system to better serve job seekers. The WILL Act will give library users access to workforce activities and information related to training services and employment opportunities, including resume development, job bank web searches, literacy services, and workshops on career information. The goal of the WILL Act is to enable libraries to access Workforce Investment Act resources to continue to provide job search support in communities all across America. Specifically, the WILL Act amends the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to: include library representation on state and local workforce investment boards; ensure the coordination of employment, training, and literacy services carried out by public libraries as part of the state workforce investment plan; recognize public libraries as an allowable ``One-Stop'' partner; authorize new demonstration and pilot projects to establish employment resources in public libraries; and encourage the Employment and Training Administration to collaborate with other federal agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, to leverage and expand access to workforce development resources. To get Americans back to work, we need to leverage all of our community assets. Public libraries play a vital role in providing access to information, technology, support, and other essential resources to help Americans find good jobs and build successful careers. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Cochran and me in cosponsoring the WILL Act and to support its inclusion in the effort to renew the Workforce Investment Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act of 2013 along with my colleague Senator Grassley. This bill will allow the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. Slightly over 10 years ago, our markets fell victim to a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. Public companies had produced fraudulent and materially misleading financial statements, which artificially drove their stock prices up and misrepresented their overall profitability. Once the fraud was discovered, investor confidence plummeted, as did the markets themselves. We all took a step back after this crisis and asked ourselves how such massive financial fraud in public reporting companies could have gone undetected for so long. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings on issues that were raised by the revelations raised by fraud at Enron and other public companies. The hearings produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing a public company's 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. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. The law also created a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The PCAOB is 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. The Board operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to commence 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 unless the parties consent. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings 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. The PCAOB's nonpublic disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the establishment of 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 last several years, bad actors have taken advantage of the lack of transparency by using it 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 past two 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. In one 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 the PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. In other words, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant and material information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are several reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, as I have already noted, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other government oversight bodies. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against those it regulates public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but from Congress as well. How can the public and Congress properly evaluate the Board's oversight of auditors and audit firms, and its enforcement program, when no one is entitled to know any of the details of these administrative proceedings, including whether a proceeding has even been initiated? Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from the public as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Third, agencies such as the SEC have observed the benefits of open and transparent disciplinary proceedings, which include the benefit of informing peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparency of proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would make the PCAOB's procedures similar to those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing the transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to disciplinary proceedings instituted by the PCAOB is a critical component of efforts to bolster and maintain investor confidence in our financial markets, and should better protect companies as well from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in taking the legislative steps necessary to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act of 2013 along with my colleague Senator Grassley. This bill will allow the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. Slightly over 10 years ago, our markets fell victim to a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. Public companies had produced fraudulent and materially misleading financial statements, which artificially drove their stock prices up and misrepresented their overall profitability. Once the fraud was discovered, investor confidence plummeted, as did the markets themselves. We all took a step back after this crisis and asked ourselves how such massive financial fraud in public reporting companies could have gone undetected for so long. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted a series of hearings on issues that were raised by the revelations raised by fraud at Enron and other public companies. The hearings produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing a public company's 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. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ensured that corporate officers were directly accountable for their financial reporting and for the quality of their financial statements. The law also created a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The PCAOB is 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. The Board operates under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The PCAOB oversees more than 2,400 registered auditing firms, as well as the thousands of audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to commence 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 unless the parties consent. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings 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. The PCAOB's nonpublic disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the establishment of 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 last several years, bad actors have taken advantage of the lack of transparency by using it 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 past two 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. In one 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 the PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. In other words, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant and material information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are several reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, as I have already noted, the closed proceedings run counter to the public proceedings of other government oversight bodies. Indeed, nearly all administrative proceedings brought by the SEC against those it regulates public companies, brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and others are open, public proceedings. The PCAOB's secret proceedings are not only shielded from the public, but from Congress as well. How can the public and Congress properly evaluate the Board's oversight of auditors and audit firms, and its enforcement program, when no one is entitled to know any of the details of these administrative proceedings, including whether a proceeding has even been initiated? Second, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from the public as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB. Third, agencies such as the SEC have observed the benefits of open and transparent disciplinary proceedings, which include the benefit of informing peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparency of proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would make the PCAOB's procedures similar to those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing the transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to disciplinary proceedings instituted by the PCAOB is a critical component of efforts to bolster and maintain investor confidence in our financial markets, and should better protect companies as well from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in taking the legislative steps necessary to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, are we in regular order?

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act. I am pleased to join Senators Enzi and Durbin and many of my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to pass this bill that will help small businesses in my State expand and create jobs by ending a tax loophole that benefits out-of-State remote sellers. I want to particularly commend Senator Enzi and Senator Durbin for their long- time leadership on this issue. They have been relentless in trying to find an effective way to allow States to collect sales taxes on items that are actually delivered into their States. This is a huge issue in my State of Rhode Island where businesses are having a very difficult time competing against out-of-State retailers because of, frankly, the outdated rules that require shops on Main Street to collect taxes while their out-of-State online competition does not. When you go to the stores in Rhode Island you'll see that they are facing this with increasing frequency. And small business men and women are demanding help. When Internet commerce was in its early stages, online companies were basically exempted by what is now, by all accounts, an out-of-date Supreme Court decision, from collecting State and local sales taxes for sales in States where they do not have a physical presence--despite the fact that there was still an obligation to collect sales taxes on those purchases. That obligation was shifted to consumers, who are often unaware they have an obligation. This loophole puts Main Street businesses at a competitive disadvantage, hurts the ability of Rhode Island to keep jobs in the State, and strains State budgets all across the United States. In order to address this inequity, the bill before us today would give States the ability to enforce their own sales tax laws and, by so doing, relieve consumers of the legal burden to report to State tax departments the sales taxes they owe on online purchases--since they would be paying sales taxes as a matter of course at the time of purchase, just as they would in a regular store. Essentially it levels the playing field. If you walk into a store in Rhode Island and there is a sales tax charge, you would pay it. If you receive an item you ordered off the Internet, you would pay a sales tax as part of the bundled price of the item. It is what people would expect to do. The legislation would also ensure that the rules for collecting sales tax from out-of-State retailers are clear and consistent. States can enter into an already established Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement which my State and 21 other States are party to, or States can adopt a set of alternative minimum simplification standards to make it easier for online businesses to comply with their tax laws. And this bill makes it easier for businesses--that choose to do business in a State that requires remote sellers to collect sales taxes--to comply with the law by providing software to help them calculate the sales tax. Furthermore, this bill exempts small businesses with less than $1 million in gross revenue from having to collect sales taxes on remote sales. Those truly small businesses would not be affected by the legislation before us today. This bill does not create new taxes or increase existing taxes. Instead, the bill will help States and cities collect billions in unpaid taxes already owed, reducing the need to raise new taxes on tax- compliant businesses and citizens. Indeed, yesterday I was with my Governor and he indicated that if we could pass this at the Federal level and allow the State of Rhode Island to collect approximately $70 million a year, he would secure a reduction in our sales taxes which would benefit all the people and businesses in Rhode Island. This is a proposal that I think is not only necessary, it is long overdue. In 2012, as I have indicated, Rhode Island estimated it lost approximately $70 million in uncollected revenue. The revenue was legally owed but, because of this loophole, it went uncollected. This puts pressure on individuals and businesses that play by the rules. Indeed, if the Marketplace Fairness Act becomes law, Rhode Island has provisions in State law--and the Governor reiterated that yesterday-- that would help lower the sales tax from 7 percent to 6.5 percent and eliminate the recent extension of sales tax to clothing purchases over $250. This would have huge and immediate benefits to the people and businesses of Rhode Island. The other thing it could do, frankly, is it would encourage local businesses to hire Rhode Islanders. We are facing a 9.1-percent unemployment rate. We have been slowly making progress in terms of putting people back to work--but there is much more to be done. This bill would help with that recovery because one of the barriers main street businesses face in hiring locally is the unfair competition from remote sellers that do not collect sales tax. This bill corrects that. Now some online retailers who benefit from this unfair tax advantage understand the need to correct the loophole. That is why companies such as Amazon.com, with substantial remote sales, support this legislation. Governors of every political stripe recognize the undue pressure this tax loophole puts on their budgets, businesses, and citizens, and that is why the National Governors Association supports this. Ultimately, the Marketplace Fairness Act is about revitalizing our real economy by helping Main Street businesses compete against remote sellers that benefit from this tax loophole because these Main Street businesses cannot hire workers or expand if shoppers use their stores just to browse and then make their purchases online in order to avoid paying sales tax. Yesterday I was with a group of business leaders in Rhode Island. Among them were the Cardi brothers, Ron and Pete Cardi, who own a family furniture store. It has been in the family for generations. They are first-rate businessmen and first-rate community leaders. They tell me it is not uncommon for someone to come in the showroom, get help from one of their skilled sales personnel, order the furniture, have it shipped to their homes so they see it fits exactly right, then call up and have it returned to the store--and then a truck will show up a day or two later at the customer's house, from a remote seller with the same item because the remote seller doesn't collect sales tax. We cannot have our retailers in States such as Rhode Island simply be showrooms for remote sellers. That is one of the consequences of this loophole we have to correct. This bipartisan proposal is designed not only to allow States to keep or retain the tax that is owed, but also, in the case of Rhode Island, to allow a tax reduction; and furthermore, to give local businesses more incentive to hire. This is legislation that makes extraordinary sense in every dimension. I hope we can get through this debate this week and successfully pass this legislation. We are all encouraged by the 75 votes this proposal received when it was made as an amendment during the budget debate and the 74 votes this bill received on the cloture motion. I am hopeful it will continue to enjoy a similar level of support moving forward. Once again, let me thank Senators Enzi and Durbin for their extraordinary leadership, which has helped forge this bipartisan and bicameral bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, since 1968, more Americans have been killed by gun violence in the United States than have died in all the wars in American history combined. This is a heavy toll on public safety and public health. As a body, this Senate can do more and should do more to make our communities safer. It has been too many years, too little action, too much tragedy and heartbreak since the last debate on guns. I know all my colleagues share my utter horror at the mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last December. Yet our responses to this and other tragedies are vastly different. I am motivated by them to demand passage of serious, concrete, and comprehensive measures to try to safeguard innocent and precious lives, to prevent the next Newtown, the next Aurora, the next Tucson, and countless other devastating examples of senseless gun violence. Unfortunately, it seems we are on the verge of throwing up our hands and saying there is nothing we can do. But there is something we can do. We will take a series of votes this afternoon to reinstate the assault weapons ban and prohibit high-capacity magazines, amendments I am cosponsoring, and a compromise effort to close the gun show loophole and require better background checks. These measures balance protection for responsible gun ownership with protection for public safety. As someone who has served in the U.S. military, I believe carrying a gun is a serious responsibility. However, today it is far too easy for criminals, domestic abusers, gang members, and terrorists to buy weapons. Today's New York Times describes just how easy it is. One South Carolina man is noted as: a fugitive from the Rhode Island police who has two outstanding felony warrants as well as a misdemeanor warrant. His legal status bars him from owning guns, but he was recently seeking to buy an AK-47 assault rifle on [the website] Armslist and was also trying to trade a Marlin rifle. He posted photos to his Facebook account of an AK-47 he had already purchased, along with a variety of other guns. Clearly, the system is broken, and there is room for common sense reform. Indeed, we need to close gaping loopholes in current law which allow the sale of firearms at gun shows or online without accountability or background checks to determine whether the buyer has a criminal record. The Manchin-Toomey compromise, while not perfect and not my ideal solution, would go a long way toward closing these loopholes. I wish to personally commend both Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey for their bipartisan, and, indeed in many respects, courageous steps to try to make this legislation possible for all of us. In March of 2004, during the 108th Congress, when Democrats were in the minority, Senator McCain and I worked together on bipartisan legislation to close the gun show loophole. With his great leadership, we passed an amendment 53 to 46, which was one of several successful gun safety amendments. Ultimately, the gun lobby defeated the underlying bill, a bill it originally supported and identified as a top priority. This was because we had managed to pass sensible gun safety measures, at least in the amendments to the legislation. This is proof that passing sensible legislation to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals is possible with bipartisan cooperation. We have done it. Gun ownership is a fundamental right in this country, but reasonable limitations on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips are fully consistent with the Second Amendment. Indeed, in the 2008 majority opinion in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the Second Amendment is ``not unlimited'' and is not ``a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'' Limiting access to military-style weapons and strengthening background checks would help save lives and make our communities safer. We also need to improve access to mental and behavioral health care. One of the ironies is that more often an individual with mental illness is the victim of gun violence or other types of violence than the perpetrator of violence. However, it is still important to take any opportunity to help strengthen our mental health system. This is why I support the Harkin-Alexander amendment which, among its many provisions, would include my bipartisan youth suicide prevention measure, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act reauthorization, legislation which was led very courageously and successfully by our former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and to muster the same kind of bipartisan cooperation Senator McCain, I, and several others had years ago. It is my wish we can reach a sensible consensus. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of Americans are demanding this. There is no question what the American people want. The question we will settle is are we responding to the American people or are we responding to a very narrow self-interest. I hope we will respond to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, on July 1, millions of college students will see the interest rate double on their student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent unless Congress takes action. Borrowers will pay an estimated $1,000 more in interest on their loans each year of repayment if Congress fails to act. Student loan debt is second only to mortgage debt for American families. Now is not the time to add to student loan debt by allowing the interest rate on need-based student loans to double. I am pleased to introduce the Student Loan Affordability Act with my colleagues Senator Al Franken, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Senator Bernie Sanders to maintain the current 3.4 percent interest rate for the next 2 years, as we work towards a long-term solution in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Last Congress, we narrowly averted a doubling of the interest rate on need-based student loans. It took thousands of calls, letters, and rallies from students and parents across the country and our concerted effort to negotiate a bipartisan solution. However, we were only able to get a temporary, 1-year fix. The budget passed by the House Republicans assumes a doubling of the interest rate. In stark contrast, the budget resolution we passed last month accommodates legislation to keep rates low. We need to come together to develop long-term solutions to the growing burden of student loan debt, the rising cost of college, and the need to improve higher education outcomes so that students complete their degrees and get the full benefit of their investment in education. Everyone agrees that college costs are too high and climbing higher. Families will be priced out of a college education, even with grants and loans, if we do not take real action on curbing cost increases. What we can do right now is reassure students and families that we will not allow the interest rate to double this July at a time when interest rates are at historic lows. Student loan debt affects millions of Americans. Two-thirds of the class of 2011 graduated owing student loans, with an average debt of $26,000. Student loan debt has passed the $1 trillion mark--exceeding credit card debt. Moreover, the students and families we are trying to help with the Student Loan Affordability Act have demonstrated economic need. Indeed, approximately 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. The question before us is will we make the student loan debt burden worse by allowing interest rates to double or will we take action to protect low and moderate income students. We need to act fast. July 1 is only 81 days away. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting the Student Loan Affordability Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2013. For nearly a decade, I have worked to give the fishermen of my state full participation in the management of the fish stocks that they rely on for their livelihoods. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally-regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the state. However, while Rhode Island's participation in the New England fishery remains important, its stake in the Mid- Atlantic fishery has become more critical. Yet, it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounted for approximately 20 percent of the commercial catch from this fishery in 2012, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In fact, New Jersey is the only state currently represented on the MAFMC that lands more MAFMC-regulated species than Rhode Island. While Rhode Island is represented on some policy-setting committees on the MAFMC, its position on those committees is not guaranteed nor does the state have a vote on matters as they come before the full council. Having that representation can be critically important to Rhode Island as decisions are made on critical stocks like squid, which comprised 40 percent of the state's annual landings in 2012 according to NOAA data, and is a major part of our commercial fishing sector. This legislation offers Rhode Island that voice. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. There is precedent for this type of change. North Carolina was added to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the state had no vote on the council. With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries on which they depend. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, on July 1, millions of college students will see the interest rate double on their student loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent unless Congress takes action. Borrowers will pay an estimated $1,000 more in interest on their loans each year of repayment if Congress fails to act. Student loan debt is second only to mortgage debt for American families. Now is not the time to add to student loan debt by allowing the interest rate on need-based student loans to double. I am pleased to introduce the Student Loan Affordability Act with my colleagues Senator Al Franken, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Senator Bernie Sanders to maintain the current 3.4 percent interest rate for the next 2 years, as we work towards a long-term solution in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Last Congress, we narrowly averted a doubling of the interest rate on need-based student loans. It took thousands of calls, letters, and rallies from students and parents across the country and our concerted effort to negotiate a bipartisan solution. However, we were only able to get a temporary, 1-year fix. The budget passed by the House Republicans assumes a doubling of the interest rate. In stark contrast, the budget resolution we passed last month accommodates legislation to keep rates low. We need to come together to develop long-term solutions to the growing burden of student loan debt, the rising cost of college, and the need to improve higher education outcomes so that students complete their degrees and get the full benefit of their investment in education. Everyone agrees that college costs are too high and climbing higher. Families will be priced out of a college education, even with grants and loans, if we do not take real action on curbing cost increases. What we can do right now is reassure students and families that we will not allow the interest rate to double this July at a time when interest rates are at historic lows. Student loan debt affects millions of Americans. Two-thirds of the class of 2011 graduated owing student loans, with an average debt of $26,000. Student loan debt has passed the $1 trillion mark--exceeding credit card debt. Moreover, the students and families we are trying to help with the Student Loan Affordability Act have demonstrated economic need. Indeed, approximately 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. The question before us is will we make the student loan debt burden worse by allowing interest rates to double or will we take action to protect low and moderate income students. We need to act fast. July 1 is only 81 days away. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting the Student Loan Affordability Act.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2013. For nearly a decade, I have worked to give the fishermen of my state full participation in the management of the fish stocks that they rely on for their livelihoods. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act established eight regional fishery management councils to give fishermen and other stakeholders the leading role in developing the fishery management plans for federally-regulated species. As such, the councils have enormous significance on the lives and livelihoods of fishermen. To ensure equitable representation, the statute sets out the states from which appointees are to be drawn for each council. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the State of Rhode Island was granted voting membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, NEFMC, as NEFMC-managed stocks represent a significant percentage of landings and revenue for the state. However, while Rhode Island's participation in the New England fishery remains important, its stake in the Mid- Atlantic fishery has become more critical. Yet, it does not have voting representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, MAFMC, which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Rhode Island's stake in the Mid-Atlantic fishery is hardly incidental. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, data, Rhode Island accounted for approximately 20 percent of the commercial catch from this fishery in 2012, and its landings are greater than the combined total of landings for the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. In fact, New Jersey is the only state currently represented on the MAFMC that lands more MAFMC-regulated species than Rhode Island. While Rhode Island is represented on some policy-setting committees on the MAFMC, its position on those committees is not guaranteed nor does the state have a vote on matters as they come before the full council. Having that representation can be critically important to Rhode Island as decisions are made on critical stocks like squid, which comprised 40 percent of the state's annual landings in 2012 according to NOAA data, and is a major part of our commercial fishing sector. This legislation offers Rhode Island that voice. Following current practice, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat appointed by the Secretary of Commerce based on recommendations from the Governor of Rhode Island, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. To accommodate these new members, the MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23. There is precedent for this type of change. North Carolina was added to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the state had no vote on the council. With mounting economic, ecological, and regulatory challenges, it is more important than ever that Rhode Island's fishermen have a voice in the management of the fisheries on which they depend. I look forward to working with Senator Whitehouse and my other colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act.