[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]]

  

                          ____________________