PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act of 2017

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process.

Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements.

In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversees more than 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight.

However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years.

These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Over the years, some bad actors have taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large.

For example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations.

In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent.

First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB.

Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and nonsecret enforcement proceedings.

Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act along with Senator Grassley. This bill permits the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB, to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process.

Over 10 years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements.

In order to address the gaps and structural weaknesses revealed by the investigation and hearings, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in a 99-to-0 vote. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong, independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies.

To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, oversees more than 1,500 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The board's ability to initiate proceedings to determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight.

However, unlike other oversight bodies, such as the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and others, the Board's disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the board's decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not allowed to be publicized until after the complete exhaustion of an appeals process, which can often take several years.

These PCAOB disciplinary proceedings create a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.

Over the years, some bad actors have taken advantage of this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. PCAOB Chairman James Doty has repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives over the years that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large.

For example, an accounting firm that was subject to a disciplinary proceeding continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without any of those companies knowing about its PCAOB disciplinary proceedings. Disturbingly, investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of relevant information about the proceedings against the firm and the substance of any violations.

In addition to the reasons I have already provided, there are other reasons why the board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent.

First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to continue to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires the expenditure of needless resources by both litigants and the PCAOB.

Second, agencies such as the SEC have found open and transparent disciplinary proceedings to be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that may give rise to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and nonsecret enforcement proceedings.

Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters.

Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings is a critical component of bolstering and maintaining investor confidence in our financial markets, while better protecting companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would align HUD homeless assistance with existing Federal children and youth programs and provide flexibility to local communities to use available resources to meet the needs that they identify.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2014 to 2015 school year; this is a 34-percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students in the 2009 to 2010 school year.

In California, over 229,000 children experienced homelessness in 2015, nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD Point-in-Time count fail to reflect these increasing numbers.

According to the national 2015 HUD Point-in-Time count, there were only 206,286 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number.

This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs and included in local planning efforts. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017 would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled-up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive Federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local priorities. The bill requires the Secretary to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations.

And I would note that the bill does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report the point in time PIT count and the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, AHAR to include data on all categories of homelessness.

Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.