[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S827-S833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 830. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the limitation on the amount individuals filing jointly can deduct for
certain State and local taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, as Tax Day approaches, Americans
families have begun calculating their taxes and filling out returns.
They face a Tax Code that is frustratingly complex and at times unfair.
The bill that I am introducing today would remedy a major discrepancy.
The SALT Deduction Fairness Act would ensure that limits on State and
local tax deductions, also known as SALT deductions, do not unfairly
penalize married filers.
Currently, the amount of State and local taxes that both single and
married filers may deduct from their annual income taxes is capped at
$10,000. Married people who file their taxes separately are limited to
$5,000 each. In other words, people would be better off not getting
married at all when it comes to the SALT deduction. My legislation
eliminates the marriage penalty by treating married couples fairly by
doubling their deduction to $20,000 when they file jointly or $10,000
each for married individuals who file separate returns.
The SALT deduction has been in the Tax Code since 1913 when the
income tax was established. It is intended to protect taxpayers from
double taxation. When the Senate considered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
I worked to keep the SALT deduction in the Federal Tax Code because of
the increased tax burden its elimination would have imposed on Mainers.
They already pay taxes on their homes and seasonal properties, annual
excise taxes on their vehicles, sales taxes, and State income taxes.
The Senate adopted my amendment, preserving the deduction for State and
local taxes up to $10,000.
Maine has one of the Nation's highest State income tax rates, making
this deduction especially important to families in my State. Last year,
an analysis by WalletHub found that Maine had the third highest overall
tax burden behind only New York and Hawaii. Yet, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau, Maine's median household income ranks only 32nd in the
Nation and is approximately $5,000 below the U.S. median household
income. Many Mainers are also subject to high local property taxes. The
SALT deduction helps to offset the burden these taxes place on Maine
families, providing critical relief for those who itemize their
deductions.
More broadly, our Tax Code must be fair to the more than 60 million
married couples living in our Nation. A couple should not face a tax
penalty for being married. One way to do that is to not penalize the
deductions they can take for State and local taxes. The SALT Deduction
Fairness Act remedies this.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to fix this
marriage penalty.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 837. A bill to enhance civil penalties under the Federal
securities laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Madam President, today I am introducing the Stronger
Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley. This
bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and
demand greater accountability from market players. Even in the midst of
an unprecedented public health and economic emergency, we continue to
see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the
consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent,
I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist.
The amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC,
can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. During
hearings I held in 2011 as chairman of the Banking Committee's
Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, I learned how this
limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to execute
its enforcement duties. At that time, a Federal judge had criticized
the SEC for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a
major actor in the financial crisis that settled with the Agency in an
amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors.
The SEC indicated that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger
penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, in the immediate
aftermath of the financial crisis, then-SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro
explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil
monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many
circumstances.'' Unfortunately, the SEC's statutory authority remains
unchanged and the Agency's deterrent effect remains limited--even
though securities fraud has not abated.
[[Page S828]]
The bipartisan bill we are introducing aims to update the SEC's
outdated civil penalties statutes. This bill strives to make potential
and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by
raising the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly
linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by
victims of a violation, and substantially increasing the financial
stakes for serial offenders of our Nation's securities laws.
Specifically, our bill would broaden the SEC's options to tailor
penalties to the particular circumstances of a given violation. In
addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``third
tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10
million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the
SEC more options to collect greater penalties based on the ill-gotten
gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors.
Our bill also seeks to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street through
two provisions. The first would authorize 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 who
violate existing Federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be
more efficient, effective, and flexible to the current civil contempt
remedy. These updates would greatly enhance the SEC's ability to levy
tough penalties against repeat offenders.
The SEC's current Director of Enforcement said several months ago
that ``a centerpiece'' of the Agency's efforts to ``hold wrongdoers
accountable and deter future misconduct . . . is ensuring that we are
using every tool in our toolkit, including penalties that have a
deterrent effect and are viewed as more than the cost of doing
business.'' Our bill will strengthen the SEC's existing tools, which
will further increase deterrence and substantially ratchet up the costs
of committing fraud.
All of our constituents deserve a strong regulator that has the
necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases
arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger
Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to
demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will
increase transparency and confidence in our financial system. I urge
our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Lankford):
S. 839. A bill to require agencies to complete a regulatory impact
analysis before issuing a significant rule, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am also introducing legislation today
to help prevent economically damaging regulations from going into
effect in the first place. My bill, the Regulatory Transparency Act,
would require Federal Agencies to conduct a more transparent and
objective analysis of the impact a proposed regulation would have on
the economy, especially on small businesses. It would also require
Agencies to justify the need for the regulation and consider other less
burdensome ways of meeting the same goal. And, importantly, it would
require Agencies to consider whether a sunset date for the regulation
would be appropriate, which could help reduce the long-term buildup of
irrelevant or outdated Federal regulations.
There is a lot more that I could say about the regulations the Biden
administration has implemented or is trying to put in place, but I will
stop here. Suffice it to say that President Biden has made use of the
regulatory system to advance an agenda that will negatively affect our
Nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to push back against
the Biden administration's many troubling regulations and to protect
our economy and the American people from the regulatory burden the
administration has put in place.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 839
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Transparency Act
of 2023''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 601 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(3) in paragraph (8)--
(A) by striking ``Recordkeeping requirement.--The'' and
inserting ``the''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) the term `significant rule' means any final rule that
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget determines is
likely to--
``(A) have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities;
``(B) create a significant inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another Federal
agency;
``(C) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
``(D) raise novel legal or policy issues.''.
SEC. 3. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES; CONSIDERATION OF SUNSET
DATES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 613. Regulatory impact analyses
``(a) In General.--Before issuing any proposed rule, final
rule, or interim final rule that meets the economic threshold
of a significant rule described in section 601(9)(A), an
agency shall conduct a regulatory impact analysis to evaluate
the proposed rule, final rule, or interim final rule, as
applicable.
``(b) Regulatory Impact Analyses.--An analysis under
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be based upon the best reasonably obtainable
supporting information, consistent with Executive Order 12866
(5 U.S.C. 601 note; relating to regulatory planning and
review) and any other relevant guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget;
``(2) be transparent, replicable, and objective;
``(3) describe the need to be addressed and how the rule
would address that need;
``(4) analyze the potential effects, including the benefits
and costs, of the rule;
``(5) to the maximum extent practicable, consider the
cumulative regulatory burden on the regulated entity under
subsection (c);
``(6) consider the potential effects on different types and
sizes of businesses, if applicable;
``(7) for a proposed rule that is likely to lead to a
significant rule, or a final or interim final rule that is a
significant rule--
``(A) describe the need to be addressed, including--
``(i) the supporting information demonstrating the need;
``(ii) the failures of private markets that warrant new
agency action, if applicable; and
``(iii) whether existing law, including regulations, has
created or contributed to the need;
``(B) define the baseline for the analysis;
``(C) set the timeframe of the analysis;
``(D) analyze any available regulatory alternatives,
including--
``(i) if rulemaking is not specifically directed by
statute, the alternative of not regulating;
``(ii) any alternatives that specify performance objectives
rather than identify or require the specific manner of
compliance that regulated entities must adopt;
``(iii) any alternatives that involve the deployment of
innovative technology or practices; and
``(iv) any alternatives that involve different requirements
for different types or sizes of businesses, if applicable;
``(E) identify the effects of the available regulatory
alternatives described in subparagraph (D);
``(F) identify the effectiveness of tort law to address the
identified need;
``(G) to the maximum extent practicable, quantify and
monetize the benefits and costs of the selected regulatory
alternative and the available alternatives under
consideration;
``(H) discount future benefits and costs quantified and
monetized under subparagraph (G);
``(I) to the maximum extent practicable, evaluate non-
quantified and non-monetized benefits and costs of the
selected regulatory alternative and the available
alternatives under consideration; and
``(J) characterize any uncertainty in benefits, costs, and
net benefits.
``(c) Cumulative Regulatory Burden.--In considering the
cumulative regulatory burden under subsection (b)(5), an
agency shall--
``(1) identify and assess the benefits and costs of other
regulations require compliance by the same regulated entities
to attempt to achieve similar regulatory objectives;
[[Page S829]]
``(2) evaluate whether the rule is inconsistent with,
incompatible with, or duplicative of other regulations; and
``(3) consider whether the estimated benefits and costs of
the rule increase or decrease as a result of other
regulations issued by the agency, including regulations that
are not yet fully implemented, compared to the benefits and
costs of that rule in the absence of such regulations.
``(d) Less Burdensome Alternatives.--If, after conducting
an analysis under subsection (a) for a proposed rule that is
likely to lead to a significant rule, or a final rule or
interim final that is a significant rule, the agency selects
a regulatory approach that is not the least burdensome
compared to an available regulatory alternative, the agency
shall include--
``(1) in the summary section of the preamble a statement
that the selected approach is more burdensome than an
available regulatory alternative; and
``(2) a justification, with supporting information, for the
selected approach.
``(e) Regulatory Determination.--
``(1) In general.--Except as expressly provided otherwise
by law, an agency may issue a proposed rule, final rule, or
interim final rule only upon a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the rule justify the costs of the rule.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) Alternative.--Whenever an agency is expressly
required by law to issue a rule, the agency shall select a
regulatory alternative that has benefits that exceed costs
and complies with law.
``(B) Compliance.--If it is not possible to comply with the
law by selecting a regulatory alternative that has benefits
that exceed costs, an agency shall select the regulatory
alternative that has the least costs and complies with law.
``Sec. 614. Consideration of sunset dates
``(a) Sunset.--Not later than July 1, 2023, an agency
shall, for each proposed rule or interim final rule of the
agency that meets the economic threshold of a significant
rule described in section 601(9)(A), include an explicit
consideration of a sunset date for the rule.
``(b) Elements.--The consideration described in subsection
(a) for a proposed rule or interim final rule described in
that subsection shall include an assessment of whether the
rule--
``(1) could become outmoded or outdated in light of changed
circumstances, including the availability of new
technologies; or
``(2) could become excessively burdensome after a period of
time due to, among other things--
``(A) disproportionate costs on small businesses;
``(B) the net effect on employment, including jobs added or
lost in the private sector; and
``(C) costs that exceed benefits.
``(c) Publication.--A summary of the consideration
described in subsection (a) for a proposed rule or interim
final rule described in that subsection shall be published in
the Federal Register along with the proposed or interim final
rule, as applicable.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``613. Regulatory impact analyses.
``614. Consideration of sunset dates.''.
SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 611(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended,
in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``and 610'' and
inserting ``610, and 613''.
______
By Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 850. A bill to incentivize States and localities to improve access
to justice, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
______
By Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 851. A bill to include a Federal defender as a nonvoting member of
the United States Sentencing Commission; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, this Saturday, March 18, will mark the
60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark Supreme Court decision
in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that every American has the
constitutional right in criminal cases, regardless of their wealth and
where they were born--they have a right, fundamentally, to the public
defense system that we know today.
Before Gideon was decided, people accused of crimes were left to fend
for themselves, having to navigate arraignments, plea bargains, jury
decisions, trials, cross-examination of witnesses--every part of the
criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing
government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand.
Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education
who ran away from home in middle school. History describes him as a
``drifter'' who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes,
but history would also come to know him as someone who fundamentally
transformed our legal system so that any person without resources
accused of a crime has a due process right to a fair trial. You can't
have a fair trial without counsel.
In 1961, Gideon was arrested for stealing $5 in change and beer,
allegedly doing so from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL. As
James Baldwin would write the same year as Gideon's arrest, ``Anyone
who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is
to be poor.''
Gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty, was too poor to
hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. The
court denied his request, saying that only indigent defenders facing
the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer.
Gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his
own lawyer. He made an opening statement to the jury and cross-examined
the prosecution's witnesses. He presented witnesses in his own defense.
He declined to testify himself and made arguments emphasizing his
innocence.
Despite his valiant efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty of this $5
theft, and he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. But Gideon felt
he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process rights.
Determined to prove his innocence, Gideon penciled a five-page,
handwritten petition asking the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to
consider his case. Against all odds, the Supreme Court granted Gideon's
petition.
Gideon would tell the Supreme Court:
It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or
which church I belong to, if any. The question is I did not
get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested
the court to appoint me [an] attorney and the court refused.
In the Court's unanimous decision, they held that ``reason and
reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of
criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire
a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for
him.''
Gideon's case was sent back to the lower court, where he had a lawyer
to defend him. It took the jury only 1 hour to come to a verdict and
acquit him.
From that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came
into existence. Folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now
guaranteed basic legal protection. Public defenders play a sacrosanct
role in our society. Every one of America's public defenders embarks on
the noble work that is the cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring
that every citizen has a right to a fair trial, that every citizen has
access to justice within the justice system.
Yet the promise of Gideon, the promise of this decision, still
remains unfulfilled. The public defense is under such strain that in
many places, it barely functions.
Justice Black declared that ``lawyers in criminal courts are
necessities, not luxuries.'' But too often across our country, adequate
legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy
enough to hire a lawyer.
Despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice,
public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to
meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective
representation. According to a 2019 Brennan Center report, only 27
percent of county-based and 21 percent of State-based public defender
offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads.
There are counties and States in America where public defenders are
responsible for more than 200 cases at one time.
The quality of public defenders also varies from State to State, town
to town, case to case. Compared to prosecutors and other attorneys,
public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. That is why
today, with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am
introducing the Providing a Quality Defense Act to provide funding to
local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused
of crimes can receive adequate representation.
The bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public
defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutors they
face. It will require
[[Page S830]]
the Department of Justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make
recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for
adequate compensation.
Public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous
advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impact of
convictions on their families and loved ones. This experience is
invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction.
However, unlike the majority of State sentencing commissions, the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, an independent Agency tasked with establishing
sentencing policies and practices for the Federal court, lacks a
representative from a public defender background who would provide an
essential perspective on the criminal justice system.
Today, again, along with Senator Durbin, I am reintroducing the
Sentencing Commission Improvements Act to add a member to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission with a public defender background who will bring
a new and valuable perspective to the Commission.
I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills, which will bring
us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and
more just. Such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a
so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who
challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the
very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. If the moral
arc of the universe bends towards justice, then Clarence Earl Gideon is
one of the arc benders.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, behind the scenes of our Nation's
courtrooms and jails, we will find some of our most dedicated public
servants. They are America's public defense lawyers. They work long
hours for low pay, and even less attention and acclaim, to protect the
most American ideal: equal justice under the law. It is thanks to their
service that every single citizen in this country is guaranteed the
right to legal counsel.
Well, this Saturday, we have a chance to honor them. It is National
Public Defender Day. This year, National Public Defender Day also marks
a major milestone in legal history. It is the 60th anniversary of the
Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright.
As hard as it is to imagine, there were days before the Gideon
decision when the constitutional right to legal counsel was not
protected. That means, in some States, if you were charged with a crime
but couldn't afford a lawyer, you were on your own.
That is exactly what happened to a man named Clarence Gideon in the
summer of 1961. At the time, he was down on his luck, struggling with
the disease of addiction on the streets of Panama City, FL.
Early one morning in June, he was arrested for a burglary. The
evidence against him: A witness claimed that they saw him steal from a
local pool hall. The police arrested him based on that accusation
alone.
When Mr. Gideon appeared in court, he told the judge he couldn't
afford a lawyer, and he asked for an appointed attorney. The judge
denied his request. He told Mr. Gideon the court could only appoint
counsel to defendants facing the death penalty. In other words, Mr.
Gideon was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which has been
enshrined in our Constitution since the enactment of the Bill of
Rights, because he wasn't accused of a very serious crime.
Well, Mr. Gideon didn't need a law degree to know something was wrong
here. So he picked up a pen and a sheet of paper and wrote a letter to
the U.S. Supreme Court, and with that letter, he changed history.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case and finally appointed him
an attorney--and not just an average attorney--future Supreme Court
Justice Abe Fortas.
Fast-forward to March of 1963. The Court issued its decision. All
nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Mr. Gideon. In the majority
opinion, Justice Hugo Black said, ``Lawyers in criminal courts are
necessities, not luxuries,'' and he concluded that the ``noble ideal .
. . [of] . . . fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every
defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the
poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer
to assist him.''
In the six decades since Gideon, generations of public defenders have
stepped up to ensure that no one is denied their right to legal
counsel, and for our most vulnerable neighbors in particular, public
defenders are an indispensable protection. They have protected the
rights of low-income and indigent Americans. They have helped
defendants access resources and services to get their lives back on
track, and they have worked day in and day out to secure sentences that
are humane and proportional.
Moreover, public defenders provide a service to all of us by
strengthening the integrity of our system of justice. Think about this:
The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the
world. So when defendants are denied adequate legal representation,
they could end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit or receive
excessive or even inhumane sentences for those that they did commit.
That is a subversion of justice that wastes resources, violates
fundamental values, and, worst of all, treats humans as if they are
disposable objects. So all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the public
defenders fighting against these injustices.
But we also need to show that gratitude by providing public defenders
with the resources they need to advocate for their clients. While the
legal profession may be lucrative for attorneys working in big,
corporate boardrooms, the reality is very different for lawyers who
dedicate themselves to public service. One recent study indicates
that--when accounting for the cost of overhead--public defenders can
earn as little as $5.16 an hour.
With meager salaries for long hours of work, it is really no wonder
that we are currently facing a shortage of public defense lawyers. And
that shortage is having a detrimental impact across the country.
Criminal cases are going unresolved, defendants in need of medical and
mental services are not being treated, and justice is being delayed--
and therefore--denied. This is a problem that effects every part of the
country. And right now, States like New Mexico and Oregon have a third
of the number of public defenders they need to clear their criminal
caseload.
Today, Senator Booker and I will be introducing two bills to
underscore the value of public defenders and provide them with greater
funding and resources. One of these bills is a piece of legislation we
first introduced in 2021: the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act.
We wrote this bill for a simple reason. Public defenders not only
provide an invaluable service to our country, they also offer an
invaluable perspective.
These legal professionals spend countless hours with vulnerable
defendants, as well as their families. They see firsthand how the
disease of addiction can lead people down the wrong path and understand
how to best support them, so they can get on the road to recovery.
Public defenders help console children who are coming to terms with
the fact that they may not hug a parent for years because they are
behind bars. And they are there to hold a parent's hand when they find
out their son or daughter has received a lengthy sentence. Public
defenders understand the sobering--and sometimes grim--reality of our
justice system better than anyone. So to build a system that actually
prepares incarcerated people to reenter society and become productive
citizens, we need to give public defenders a seat at the decision-
making table. The Sentencing Commission Improvements Act will achieve
that by adding an ex officio member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission
who is a public defender. It is exactly the perspective the Commission
needs to develop fairer sentencing guidelines.
Our other bill is the Quality Defense Act. It will create a grant
program to help fund data collection, hiring, increased compensation,
and loan assistance programs for public defenders. This bill also
directs the Justice Department to study and develop best practices and
recommendations on appropriate public defender caseloads and levels of
compensation. These measures will provide public defenders with
resources that reflect the importance of their service and encourage
attorneys to pursue careers as public defenders.
[[Page S831]]
I believe our justice system is stronger when it incorporates the
insights of experts who have worked across the legal spectrum. That is
why, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked to
confirm Federal judges who have served as public defenders. These
perspectives have long been excluded from the Federal bench, which is a
disservice to the American public. Thankfully, we are finally changing
course. Last year, this Senate confirmed the first former public
defender to ever serve on the Supreme Court: Justice Ketanji Brown
Jackson.
And in the past 2 years, we have confirmed more circuit judges with
experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined. One
of them is Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, who serves on the Seventh
Circuit in my home State of Illinois. Back in 2017, Judge Jackson-
Akiwumi reflected on her time as a public defender--and how it tested
her as a legal professional.
She wrote that, as a public defender, ``I am a counselor, helping
clients to navigate difficult choices. . . . I am a teacher,
introducing clients and their families to the federal court system . .
.
``[and] I am a lay social worker: many of our clients have
disadvantaged backgrounds, extensive mental health histories, substance
abuse issues, and other everyday challenges.''
When you work as a public defender, the job demands a lot more than a
simple attorney-client relationship. It is a job that demands
resourcefulness, thoughtfulness, and quick, strategic thinking. These
are the same qualities we need in the judges who serve on our Nation's
Federal courts. And they are the same qualities people look for when
they enter the courtroom as a plaintiff or defendant.
So as we honor National Public Defender Day this weekend, I want to
thank all of our courageous and dedicated public defense attorneys
across America. We are grateful for your commitment to defending equal
justice under law.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr.
Blumenthal):
S. 858. A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 858
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cameras in the Courtroom
Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.
(a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all
open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a
vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such coverage
in a particular case would constitute a violation of the due
process rights of 1 or more of the parties before the
Court.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
at the end the following:
``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Rubio):
S. 862. A bill to address health workforce shortages through
additional funding for the National Health Service Corps, and to
establish a National Health Service Corps Emergency Service
demonstration project; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 862
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring America's Health
Care Workforce and Readiness Act''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
CORPS.
(a) Additional Funding.--Section 10503(b)(2) of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 254b-2(b)(2))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) $625,000,000 for fiscal year 2024;
``(J) $675,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; and
``(K) $825,000,000 for fiscal year 2026.''.
(b) National Health Service Corps Emergency Service
Demonstration Project.--Part B of title XXVIII of the Public
Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2812
(42 U.S.C. 300hh-11) the following:
``SEC. 2812A. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS EMERGENCY SERVICE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years [2024] through
[2026], from the amounts made available under section
10503(b)(2) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act, to the extent permitted by, and consistent with, the
requirements of applicable State law, the Secretary shall
allocate up to $50,000,000 to establishing, as a
demonstration project, a National Health Service Corps
Emergency Service (referred to in this section as the
`emergency service') under which a qualified individual
currently or previously participating in the National Health
Service Corps agrees to engage in service through the
National Disaster Medical System established under section
2812, as described in this section.
``(b) Participants.--
``(1) NHSC alumni.--
``(A) Qualified individuals.--An individual may be eligible
to participate in the emergency service under this section if
such individual participated in the Scholarship Program under
section 338A or the Loan Repayment Program under section
338B, and satisfied the obligated service requirements under
such program, in accordance with the individual's contract.
``(B) Priority and increased funding amounts.--
``(i) Priority.--In selecting eligible individuals to
participate in the program under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall give priority--
``(I) first, to qualified individuals who continue to
practice at the site where the individual fulfilled his or
her obligated service under the Scholarship Program or Loan
Repayment Program through the time of the application to the
program under this section; and
``(II) secondly, to qualified individuals who continue to
practice in any site approved for obligated service under the
Scholarship Program or Loan Repayment Program other than the
site at which the individual served.
``(ii) Increased funding amounts.--The Secretary may grant
increased award amounts to certain participants in the
program under this section based on the site where a
participant fulfilled his or her obligated service under the
Scholarship Program or Loan Repayment Program.
``(C) Private practice.--An individual participating in the
emergency service under this section may practice a health
profession in any private capacity when not obligated to
fulfill the requirements described in subsection (c).
``(2) Current nhsc members.--
``(A) In general.--An individual who is participating in
the Scholarship Program under section 338A or the Loan
Repayment Program under section 338B may apply to participate
in the program under this section while fulfilling the
individual's obligated services under such program.
``(B) Clarifications.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law or any contract with respect to service requirements
under the Scholarship Program or Loan Repayment Program, an
individual fulfilling service requirements described in
subsection (c) shall not be considered in breach of such
contract under such Scholarship Program or Loan Repayment
Program, provided that the individual give advance and
reasonable notification to the site at which the individual
is fulfilling his or her obligated service requirements under
such contract, and the site approves the individual's
deployment through the National Disaster Medical System.
``(C) No credit toward obligated service.--No period of
service under the National Disaster Medical System described
in subsection (c)(1) shall be counted toward satisfying a
period of obligated service under the Scholarship Program or
Loan Repayment Program.
``(c) Participants as Members of the National Disaster
Medical System.--
``(1) Service requirements.--An individual participating in
the program under this section shall participate in the
activities of the National Disaster Medical System under
section 2812 in the same manner and to the same extent as
other participants in such system.
``(2) Rights and requirements.--An individual participating
in the program under this section shall be considered
participants in the National Disaster Medical System and
shall be subject to the rights and requirements of
subsections (c) and (d) of section 2812.
``(d) Emergency Service Plan.--In carrying out this
section, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the
[[Page S832]]
Health Resources and Services Administration and the
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, shall
establish an action plan for the service commitments,
deployment protocols, coordination efforts, training
requirements, liability, workforce development, and such
other considerations as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Such action plan shall--
``(1) ensure adherence to the missions of both the National
Health Service Corps and National Disaster Medical Service;
``(2) outline the type of providers determined by the
Assistant Secretary to be priorities for participation in the
program established under this section;
``(3) describe how such deployments will be determined and
prioritized in a manner consistent with--
``(A) the National Health Service Corps contracts; and
``(B) the National Disaster Medical System's deployment
policy of not hindering civilian responders already engaged
in an emergency response;
``(4) ensure an adequate health care workforce during a
public health emergency declared by the Secretary under
section 319 of this Act, a major disaster declared by the
President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, an emergency
declared by the President under section 501 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or a
national emergency declared by the President under the
National Emergencies Act; and
``(5) describe how the program established under this
section will be implemented in a manner consistent with, and
in furtherance of, the assessments and goals for workforce
and training described in the review conducted by the
Secretary under section 2812(b)(2).
``(e) Contracts for Certain Participating Individuals.--An
individual who is participating in the emergency service
program under this section shall receive loan repayments in
an amount up to 50 percent (as determined by the Secretary)
of the highest new award made for the year under the National
Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program pursuant to a
contract entered into at the same time under section 338B(g),
in a manner similar to the manner in which payments are made
under such section, pursuant to the terms of a contract
between the Secretary and such individual. The Secretary
shall establish a system of contracting for purposes of this
subsection which shall be similar to the contract
requirements and terms under subsections (c), (d), and (f) of
section 338B. Amounts received by an individual under this
subsection shall be in addition to any amounts received by an
individual described in subsection (b)(2) pursuant to the
Scholarship Program under section 338A or the Loan Repayment
Program under section 338B, as applicable.
``(f) Breach of Contract, Termination, Waiver, and
Suspension.--
``(1) Recovery of amounts in the event of a breach.--If an
individual breaches the written contract of the individual
under subsection (e) by failing either to begin such
individual's service obligation in accordance with such
contract or to complete such service obligation, the United
States shall be entitled to recover from the individual an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the total of the amounts paid by the United States
under such contract on behalf of the individual for any
period of such service not served;
``(B) an amount equal to the product of the number of
months of service that were not completed by the individual,
multiplied by $3,750; and
``(C) the interest on the amounts described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B), at the maximum legal prevailing
rate, as determined by the Treasurer of the United States,
from the date of the breach.
``(2) Termination of contract.--The Secretary may terminate
a contract under subsection (e) in accordance with the
termination standards that are--
``(A) applicable to contracts entered into under section
338B; and
``(B) in effect in the fiscal year in which such contract
was entered.
``(3) Waiver or suspension of obligation.--If an individual
participating in the program under this section submits a
written request to the Secretary, the Secretary may waive or
suspend a service or payment obligation arising under this
subsection or a contract under subsection (e), in whole or in
part, in accordance with the standards set forth in section
62.12 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (or any
successor regulations).
``(g) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives a report that evaluates the demonstration
project established under this section, including--
``(1) the effects of such program on health care access in
underserved areas and health professional shortage areas and
on public health emergency response capacity;
``(2) the effects of such program on the health care
provider workforce pipeline, including any impact on the
fields or specialties pursued by students in approved
graduate training programs in medicine, osteopathic medicine,
dentistry, behavioral and mental health, or other health
profession;
``(3) the impact of such program on the enrollment,
participation, and completion of requirements in the
underlying scholarship and loan repayment programs of the
National Health Service Corps;
``(4) the effects of such program on the National Disaster
Medical System's response capability, readiness, and
workforce strength; and
``(5) recommendations for improving the demonstration
project described in this section, and any other
considerations as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 865. A bill to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to promote
transparency by permitting the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board to allow its disciplinary proceedings to be open to the public,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. REED. Madam President, the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, PCAOB, Enforcement Transparency Act, which I am reintroducing
today with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the
disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and
audit firms earlier in the process.
Nearly two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial
reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom, the
Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which produced
consensus on various underlying causes, including weak corporate
governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of
accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial
statements. Later, in a 99-to-0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the
hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation
of an 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.
Today, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commissions, SEC, oversees nearly 1,700 registered accounting
firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a
firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings
that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing
standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial component of
its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the Board's
disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the
parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary
proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged
wrongdoing, and these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a
veil of secrecy. In addition, the Board cannot publicize the results of
its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been
completely exhausted, which can often take several years.
This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the
congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright
light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct, and bolster
the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing
public.
Our bill will restore transparency by making hearings by the PCAOB
and all related notices, orders, and notices, orders and motions
transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the
Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those
of the SEC for analogous matters.
Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to
PCAOB disciplinary proceedings bolsters investor confidence in our
financial markets and better protects companies from problematic
auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in
supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's
enforcement process.
[[Page S833]]
____________________