Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019

Mr. President, the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I reintroduce today with Senator Grassley, will permit 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.

More than fifteen 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 a 99 to 0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses and faults revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong and 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 1,800 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 an important component of its oversight.

However, unlike 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 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 thus 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.

Concealing PCAOB disciplinary proceedings from the public creates 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 used this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. Former PCAOB Chairman James Doty repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives 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 continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without those companies knowing that it was subject to a PCAOB disciplinary proceeding. Disturbingly, these investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of important information about the proceeding against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are other critical reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent.

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

Second, agencies such as the SEC have found that open and transparent disciplinary proceedings can be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that could lead 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 non-secret enforcement proceedings.

Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would 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.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act,'' which would help address the concerning rise of electronic cigarette use among America's youth.

This common-sense bill would protect children by requiring online retailers of e-cigarettes to meet the same standards as those that sell regular cigarettes and other tobacco products online.

E-cigarette use among teenagers has increased dramatically over the past few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20 percent of high school students used electronic cigarettes in 2018. In comparison, only about 1.5 percent of high school students reportedly used e-cigarettes in 2011.

Even more disturbing, the rise of teenage use of e-cigarettes appears to be accelerating. Between 2017 and 2018, e-cigarettes use among high school-aged children jumped 78%. Today, e-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco product among America's youth. These severe levels of e-cigarette use by middle and high school-aged children are staggering.

According to a U.S. Surgeon General report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Studies have also shown that the development of the brain during adolescence can be permanently altered by nicotine. As a result, children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for acting out drug-seeking behaviors, experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, and suffering from mood disorders. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped.

Given the effects of nicotine on children, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that have allowed underage youth to gain access to tobacco, particularly through e-cigarettes.

Among underage e-cigarette users, 86 percent reported that they obtained the product from somewhere other than a retail store. And a recent survey of adolescent e-cigarette users showed that 32 percent of them reported purchasing their products online, making online sales the single largest source of underage purchases.

Our legislation would build off the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act,'' which has been a tremendous success in preventing underage use of cigarettes. Since it passed, the number of middle and high school students who use cigarettes has been nearly cut in half. We should expand on this success by requiring e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell regular cigarettes online.

By applying the same safeguards that have worked with online sales of regular cigarettes, our bill would ensure that online e-cigarette sellers are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification at delivery.

In addition, our bill requires deliveries of e-cigarettes to comply with relevant State tobacco taxes and reporting requirements, as is currently required of online sales of regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. E-cigarette retailers will also need to register and maintain a record of their online sales, which will be accessible to State and Federal law officials. Law enforcement will be able to identify and shut down online vendors that are systematically breaking the law by marketing their e-cigarette products to children.

This bill complements efforts by the Food and Drug Administration, which has recognized the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use and proposed a number of policies meant to prevent underage retail purchases, limit flavors that appeal to children, and enforce age verifications.

Over the last 50 years, the United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the number of Americans that use tobacco products. However, the dramatic recent rise of e-cigarette use among our youth threatens that progress and requires a strong response.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in introducing legislation on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among America's youth. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bipartisan bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I began my career as a civil rights attorney. My initial focus was on fair housing, and I learned early on that a home is more than just structure or a shelter. A home plays an integral role in one's identity, and it is central to the life of every American.

Housing discrimination nevertheless continues to plague many Americans. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark Federal housing law.

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. It does not, however, protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender. More than 20 states and over 200 localities safeguard sexual orientation and gender identify in their housing discrimination laws. That's telling. It's time for the federal government to do the same.

A study released this month analyzed national mortgage data from 1990 to 2015. It found that same-sex applicants were 73 percent more likely to be denied approval for a mortgage than opposite-sex couples.

The study also found that same-sex couples often pay more for their loans in interest and fees. This despite the fact that the study found no evidence that same-sex couples carried a higher default risk. In fact, the study's findings suggest that same-sex borrowers may perform better. The analysis indicated that, on average, same-sex couples paid 0.2 percent more in interest and fees, which adds up to as much as $86 million per year.

These findings confirm the need to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal housing laws. Loan decisions should be based on fundamental economic considerations, not race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The job of perfecting our Union is an ongoing quest requiring continued stewardship. Our history is replete with examples of manifest action from the Bill of Rights, to the 14th Amendment, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019 is one more step in our longer journey to perfect our Union and to extinguish discrimination in places which call for our leadership. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bipartisan bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I began my career as a civil rights attorney. My initial focus was on fair housing, and I learned early on that a home is more than just structure or a shelter. A home plays an integral role in one's identity, and it is central to the life of every American.

Housing discrimination nevertheless continues to plague many Americans. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark Federal housing law.

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. It does not, however, protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender. More than 20 states and over 200 localities safeguard sexual orientation and gender identify in their housing discrimination laws. That's telling. It's time for the federal government to do the same.

A study released this month analyzed national mortgage data from 1990 to 2015. It found that same-sex applicants were 73 percent more likely to be denied approval for a mortgage than opposite-sex couples.

The study also found that same-sex couples often pay more for their loans in interest and fees. This despite the fact that the study found no evidence that same-sex couples carried a higher default risk. In fact, the study's findings suggest that same-sex borrowers may perform better. The analysis indicated that, on average, same-sex couples paid 0.2 percent more in interest and fees, which adds up to as much as $86 million per year.

These findings confirm the need to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal housing laws. Loan decisions should be based on fundamental economic considerations, not race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The job of perfecting our Union is an ongoing quest requiring continued stewardship. Our history is replete with examples of manifest action from the Bill of Rights, to the 14th Amendment, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019 is one more step in our longer journey to perfect our Union and to extinguish discrimination in places which call for our leadership. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.