Floor Statements

Madam President, today I am introducing the Bank Management Accountability Act along with Senator Grassley. This bipartisan bill will make it easier for banking regulators to claw back compensation from directors and senior executives at failed systemically important banks and to ban those directors and executives from future participation in the financial industry.

We have recently experienced the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, two systemically important banks each with assets exceeding $100 billion. Executives at these banks received exorbitant compensation as the banks took on excessive risks. The CEO of Silicon Valley Bank received $10 million in compensation in 2022 and sold $3.5 million of company stock in the days before the failure. The CEO of Signature Bank received $8.7 million in compensation in 2022 and sold millions of dollars' worth of company stock in the weeks and months before the failure.

The government declared the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank a ``systemic risk'' to the economy and stepped in with extraordinary backstops and emergency assistance, including protecting uninsured depositors. While these actions prevented contagion from spreading throughout

the financial system, these two failures are expected to cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's, FDIC's deposit insurance fund over $20 billion and have required the Federal Reserve to extend over $143 billion in credit to their successor banks. The FDIC needs stronger tools to prevent directors and senior executives from enriching themselves when their risky bets destabilize the financial sector and saddle the American people with the costs.

The bipartisan bill we are introducing aims to update the FDIC's outdated compensation clawback authority and weak financial industry ban authority. This bill will make directors and senior executives think twice before engaging in risky activities by allowing the FDIC to claw back the prior 2 years of their compensation if their bank fails. And to ensure that directors and senior executives cannot return to another bank and place depositors' funds at risk again, the bill would make it much easier for the FDIC to prohibit them from participating in the affairs of any financial company for at least two years.

Under existing law, high standards of liability significantly interfere with regulators' ability to seek restitution from directors and officers of failed banks and bar them from the industry. After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress established much more powerful clawback authority. But this tool is only available when the largest banks are unwound using a special process called ``orderly liquidation authority'' that the regulators have never used--even for the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. That is why directors and senior executives at large banks rarely are subject to compensation clawbacks and financial industry bans, even if they are negligent in running their bank and the government ultimately needs to step in with extraordinary backstops and emergency assistance.

Our bill would apply the easier rules for clawing back compensation from Dodd-Frank's special ``orderly liquidation authority'' to a much broader set of banks, including Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. It would also specify that recouped funds may not be paid out of directors' and officers' liability insurance coverage to make sure that they have true personal liability and skin in the game. Finally, it would lower the standard for barring directors and senior executives at failed systemically important banks from the financial industry. These updates would greatly enhance the banking regulators' ability to recover funds for the benefit of the taxpayers, to protect depositors from directors and senior executives who have already driven a bank into failure, and to provide powerful disincentives against excessive risk taking.

All of our constituents deserve strong bank regulators with the necessary tools to go after executives and directors at banks whose failures threaten the economy. The Bank Management Accountability Act will enhance our regulators' authorities to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street and Silicon Valley, which in turn will increase confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Madam President, I understand that there is a vote scheduled at 5:45, and in order to clarify the voting procedure this evening, I would initially ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks and the following Senators be permitted to speak for five minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

I also presume that Senator Tuberville will speak while he reserves his right to object; is that correct? So you do not need time?

In that case, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Lee, Senator Hirono, Senator Bennet, and Senator Marshall to be granted 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the promotions and appointments of general and flag officers in the United States military, including several appointments to lieutenant general and vice admiral.

These are officers who would hold positions of particular importance and responsibility to the Nation. The promotions of these military leaders were reported out of the Armed Services Committee over the past 2 months.

There have been no substantive objections raised against these nominations. For the benefit of my colleagues who may not appreciate the nature and volume of military promotions and nominations considered by the Armed Services Committee, last year, the Committee considered and the Senate confirmed nearly 20,000 military officers, including 656 general and flag officers.

The Senate confirmed 20,000 nominations through bipartisan unanimous consent because the tradition of the Committee and of the Senate is to consider military nominations as apolitical and thus process them in a timely and respectful manner so our troops do not experience delays in their promotion or appointment or in their pay and benefits.

Moreover, the sheer volume of nominations we consider means we cannot subject them to the ordinary political gamesmanship we see with civilian nominations.

The senior Senator from Alabama has made these promotions a political matter. He and he alone placed a blanket hold on these officers, unrelated to their qualifications, because of a policy disagreement with the administration that these officers played no part in deciding.

This, in my view, is a profound assault on the professionalism of the men and women of the armed services.

The vast majority of these officers were selected by promotion boards, which are panels of military officers who decide promotions purely on merit, considering the skill, talent, and the military's collective assessment of their potential to lead in the grades for which they have been nominated.

Blanket political holds on military officers, in an attempt to overturn a civilian policy decision, sets a dangerous trend for our military, our political process, our Nation, and this Senate.

The senior Senator from Alabama placed his hold on February 16th, and as a result, not a single general or flag officer nominated in this Congress has been confirmed.

Let me repeat that.

Due to the senior Senator from Alabama's hold, not a single general or flag officer has been promoted.

As the Senator's hold moves into its third month, we will quickly reach a critical mass of backlogged nominations, if we are not already there, that will imperil our national security, degrade unit readiness, and place undue, and undeserved, hardships on military families.

It may not be his intent, but he is effectively accomplishing what our adversaries could only dream of: denying our military of its leadership and degrading our ability to fight and win the Nation's wars.

The bottom line is that military promotions are not a political matter and they are not toys for political gains, and military officers are not tokens in such a game. They are not hostages to issues that are determined by civilian authorities.

An administration's civilian nominees may be fair game, and they have been repeatedly, but not professional military officers. That has long been the Committee's and the Senate's tradition and practice.

And I want to turn to some specific claims made by the Senator from Alabama. He has asserted a number of times that the Department changed the law or that DOD somehow lacked authority. That simply isn't true.

To be clear, under its new policy--and this is with respect to reproductive rights for female soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians--the Department of Defense will provide administrative leave and paid travel if a member of the military or their dependent is stationed in a State or country that does not provide the healthcare needed.

The Department has broad statutory authority to provide travel benefits to servicemembers and their dependents, and it does so routinely, including for the provision of healthcare services. I am not aware of any assertion from anyone knowledgeable of the law and of the Department's actions that the Department does not have the authority to do this. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no serious lawyer has made this argument, and there has not been a single lawsuit filed on this matter.

These policies are, again, travel and administrative leave policies. They do not violate the Federal prohibition on DOD paying for noncovered reproductive health services. Such reproductive health services will still be paid for by members and dependents out of their own pockets. These policies merely facilitate the provision of health services for servicemembers and dependents who may be stationed in an area that does not provide the needed healthcare, including overseas locations.

Further, the senior Senator from Alabama has publicly stated:

``If Democrats are so worried about the nominations, then they can bring them up for a vote. We have more than enough time to vote on nominees.''

Setting aside the deeply troubling implication that certain Members of the Republican Party do not care enough about our national defense to ensure that senior military leaders are in place in a timely manner, it would take several months of constant attention on this floor just to move through the current batch of general and flag officers that are presently on the Senate calendar. And this is not even accounting for all the nominations still to come.

If we took this path, this Senate would be consumed entirely by nominating and confirming military officers ad infinitum, unable to do anything else.

And there are currently 184 general and flag officers, including 11 to be promoted to lieutenant general or vice admiral, subject to this political hold.

And let me highlight just three to show you the impact and the consequences of these holds.

One nominee is nominated to be Commander of the Navy's 7th Fleet. It is the largest of the Navy's deployed fleets and has responsibility for the Indo-PACOM area of operations.

And I hear constantly in the Committee and elsewhere on the floor: The Chinese threat--we have got to do more. We just listened to a long diatribe about TikTok and how dangerous it is.

I think what might be more dangerous is not having a confirmed leader for this fleet in the Pacific able to move out immediately to any type of threat coming from the Chinese.

In addition, the Commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet is responsible for the naval and combined maritime forces in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and it is under the overall command of U.S. Central Command. And we hear every day--we heard it just recently--about how the Iranians are taking advantage of us. They say we are not responding strongly enough.

Well, how effective will our response be if we are not quite sure who the Commander of this fleet is? We have got a nominee, but the officer is not confirmed. We have an officer who may have to leave for another assignment. This causes readiness problems, morale problems, and undermines the military that we all seem around here to suggest is our primary concern.

Another one: the U.S. Military Representative to NATO, who is the senior uniformed representative to NATO during a time when NATO is critical to our support of Ukraine, therefore, against Russia.

And, again, my colleagues would stand up and say: We have got to do more for Ukraine. We have to make sure they get the support they need, through coordination with NATO. We have to do all these things, but we really don't need anyone in Brussels to help with military advice and assistance. We will just ignore that.

These are just three examples, and I would like to look ahead because this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Within the next 8 months, we expect the Department to nominate approximately 650 general and flag officers, including 80 three- or four-star nominees, all of whom will come through the Armed Services Committee and require Senate confirmation.

These include the nomination of the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By law, General Milley will retire in September. If this hold persists, then we will be without a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We also expect nominations for the service chiefs of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. The Chief of Staff for the Army, the CNO of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps are scheduled to retire.

If this hold persists, we will not have leadership in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, and that would be devastating to readiness, to morale, to the whole history of our government in which we move nominees based on merit, not as political hostages.

We are also talking about major combat commands--Cyber Command. Does anyone have to talk about the relevance of Cyber Command? Again, we just listened to a long, long discussion about cyber security and the stealing of information and governmental interference with that. Cyber Command is the key actor from the Department of Defense standpoint in all of those efforts. And, frankly, without a Commander of Cyber Command, I think the TikTok issue sort of diminishes in importance.

We also have SPACECOM and NORTHCOM. They are responsible for the defense of the United States so that we do not find ourselves here at home devastated by any type of attack, which, today, includes cyber, missile, hypersonics--all those possibilities.

There are also three Deputy Commanders who are coming on--CYBERCOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM.

So what you can see is, if this policy continues or this practice continues, we are wiping out the leadership of the Department of Defense and doing an extraordinary disservice to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

We have always treated military nominations appropriately, as beyond the political fray, and we must continue to do so for the good of the service and all those who take the oath, and their families, too, because no military member serves alone. The families serve with him or her.

Now, I believe in a very strong military based on constitutional and professional values. We must not inject political theater into this process.

If we do not have a coherent, organized leadership at the Department of Defense, then we are putting our troops at risk. That is quite simple, and, to me, it is unacceptable.

With that, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, first of all, the notion that we can simply start confirming these officers is patently absurd. There are 184 nominations that are on hold now. We anticipate another 650 general and flag officer nominations throughout the remainder of this year.

Because we get very little cooperation--in fact, none at all--from the Republicans, we average about three nominations a week--Senator Durbin knows this well--because we have to wait, during quorum calls, to exhaust the hours necessary before we can take the final vote. So we would be working many months, just on this batch of 184, to confirm these officers. And then when we add 650 additional nominations--and they will keep coming and coming--that is absolutely preposterous. It is impossible. So that is not an answer to the problem.

He mentioned Senator Duckworth. Senator Duckworth held nominations for 3 weeks. She was not trying to change the policy of the Federal Government under the Trump administration. She wanted factual information whether President Trump had had politicized the military by interfering with Colonel Vindman's promotion. That is the exact opposite of what the Senator from Alabama is doing. He is holding everybody's nomination as a political action, just like President Trump was trying to do with Colonel Vindman, as reciprocation and as retaliation.

We had a hearing on recruitment at the request of the minority. What are the issues there? The issues are that we have a 3-percent unemployment rate. One of the most significant issues facing the military services is the low percentage of individuals who are eligible and interested in military service.

The issue of whether or not this policy affects recruiting, I think, was refuted by the Senator when he has indicated that he expects 4,000 people to take advantage of this policy. Well, that is not a trivial number. And I would suspect women considering the

military would think hard, regardless of their moral position. They would not like to be in a place where they cannot get access to reproductive care. Twenty percent of the military are women. It is going to have an effect on women. Just look at the polling across the United States about Roe v. Wade versus the Dobbs decision, and I think you will find that there is a significant number of women who are concerned.

So this is very simple. We are either going to politicize and completely ignore military nominations, using military officers as hostages for political decisions, or we can return to tradition and confirm expeditiously. And one final point, this issue will be considered in the usual order because during the Armed Services Committee markup, I presume there will be amendments on both sides that will be considered fairly, and this issue will be addressed, as it should be, in the context of the National Defense Authorization Act.

What the Senator of Alabama is doing is damaging the military of the United States, perhaps catastrophically, if he continues this policy for many more weeks. That is not appropriate.

With that I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act, a bill that is aimed at eliminating the rash of violence and abuse that is occurring on commercial flights across the country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representatives Eric Swalwell of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who are introducing companion legislation in the other body. The goal of our bill is to send a clear signal that individuals who engage in serious abusive or violent behavior on an aircraft or at an airport security checkpoint will be banned from flying.

In the last few years, we have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of violence and abuse against crewmembers and airline passengers. In 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration received 2,456 reports of ``unruly passengers.'' Those complaints led to 831 investigations, a record 567 enforcement actions initiated, and a historic $8.45 million in proposed fines. That makes 2022 one of the most violent years in air travel since the FAA started tracking incidents in the mid-1990s, second only to 2021. While the numbers are trending down, we are still seeing some extraordinary dangerous and violent behavior.

In April 2022, the FAA proposed a record $81,950 fine against a passenger who tried to open the cockpit door on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Charlotte, struck and threatened multiple flight attendants, and continued to attempt to assault the crew and other passengers once restrained.

The FAA also proposed a $77,272 fine against a passenger on a Delta flight from Las Vegas who ``attempted to hug and kiss the passenger seated next to her; walked to the front of the aircraft to try to exit during flight; refused to return to her seat; and bit another passenger multiple times.''

Just this month, the Department of Justice reported the arrest of a passenger for allegedly attempting to open an emergency exit door while aboard a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston. During the incident, the passenger attempted to stab a flight attendant with a broken metal spoon, hitting the flight attendant on the neck area three times. Video of this disturbing assault went viral and was widely reported on.

In any setting, these actions would be shocking and unacceptable but on an airplane, such behavior also represents a danger to all passengers. Clearly, the existing regime of civil and criminal penalties have not been enough to deter this upsurge. We need to send a signal that such type of behavior will not be tolerated.

The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act would require the Transportation Security Administration to create and manage a program which bars passengers who are fined or convicted of abusive behavior and physical violence from flying. Transparency and notice will be provided to banned individuals, including guidelines for removal and opportunities for appeal. The bill would also permanently ban abusive passengers from participating in the TSA PreCheck or Customs' Global Entry Programs.

The bill provides appropriate fairness and due process by ensuring that only individuals who have been assessed civil or criminal penalty for abusive and violent behavior will be included on a list of banned fliers. The bill also requires the TSA to explain how it will maintain its list of banned fliers, provide an explanation of how long an individual may be barred from flying based on the severity of the offense, and set guidelines for an individual to appeal and seek removal from the list of banned fliers.

I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance of assuring fairness and transparency while sending a strong signal that violent and abusive behavior will not be tolerated. I am pleased that the bill is supported by both airline industry leaders and labor unions, including Air Line Pilots Association; Association of Flight Attendants, CWA; Association of Professional Flight Attendants; Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America, CWA; American Airlines; Delta Airlines; and Southwest Airlines. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act, a bill that is aimed at eliminating the rash of violence and abuse that is occurring on commercial flights across the country. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Representatives Eric Swalwell of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who are introducing companion legislation in the other body. The goal of our bill is to send a clear signal that individuals who engage in serious abusive or violent behavior on an aircraft or at an airport security checkpoint will be banned from flying.

In the last few years, we have seen an extraordinary increase in the number of cases of violence and abuse against crewmembers and airline passengers. In 2022, the Federal Aviation Administration received 2,456 reports of ``unruly passengers.'' Those complaints led to 831 investigations, a record 567 enforcement actions initiated, and a historic $8.45 million in proposed fines. That makes 2022 one of the most violent years in air travel since the FAA started tracking incidents in the mid-1990s, second only to 2021. While the numbers are trending down, we are still seeing some extraordinary dangerous and violent behavior.

In April 2022, the FAA proposed a record $81,950 fine against a passenger who tried to open the cockpit door on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Charlotte, struck and threatened multiple flight attendants, and continued to attempt to assault the crew and other passengers once restrained.

The FAA also proposed a $77,272 fine against a passenger on a Delta flight from Las Vegas who ``attempted to hug and kiss the passenger seated next to her; walked to the front of the aircraft to try to exit during flight; refused to return to her seat; and bit another passenger multiple times.''

Just this month, the Department of Justice reported the arrest of a passenger for allegedly attempting to open an emergency exit door while aboard a United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Boston. During the incident, the passenger attempted to stab a flight attendant with a broken metal spoon, hitting the flight attendant on the neck area three times. Video of this disturbing assault went viral and was widely reported on.

In any setting, these actions would be shocking and unacceptable but on an airplane, such behavior also represents a danger to all passengers. Clearly, the existing regime of civil and criminal penalties have not been enough to deter this upsurge. We need to send a signal that such type of behavior will not be tolerated.

The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act would require the Transportation Security Administration to create and manage a program which bars passengers who are fined or convicted of abusive behavior and physical violence from flying. Transparency and notice will be provided to banned individuals, including guidelines for removal and opportunities for appeal. The bill would also permanently ban abusive passengers from participating in the TSA PreCheck or Customs' Global Entry Programs.

The bill provides appropriate fairness and due process by ensuring that only individuals who have been assessed civil or criminal penalty for abusive and violent behavior will be included on a list of banned fliers. The bill also requires the TSA to explain how it will maintain its list of banned fliers, provide an explanation of how long an individual may be barred from flying based on the severity of the offense, and set guidelines for an individual to appeal and seek removal from the list of banned fliers.

I believe this bill strikes the appropriate balance of assuring fairness and transparency while sending a strong signal that violent and abusive behavior will not be tolerated. I am pleased that the bill is supported by both airline industry leaders and labor unions, including Air Line Pilots Association; Association of Flight Attendants, CWA; Association of Professional Flight Attendants; Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Communications Workers of America, CWA; American Airlines; Delta Airlines; and Southwest Airlines. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, along with Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen. Our bipartisan bill will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country.

Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7.4 million low-income households reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $372 in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine.

In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less

work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses.

The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The program supports over 8,500 jobs for energy experts and contractors, while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion.

The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come.

This bill will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes need minor structural repairs before then can be weatherized. The bill will authorize a Weatherization Readiness Fund to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve.

At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Madam President, today I am introducing the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, along with Senators Collins, Coons, and Shaheen. Our bipartisan bill will make critical updates to ensure this important program can effectively serve even more households across the country.

Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more than 7.4 million low-income households reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The Department of Energy estimates that these upgrades help each household save $372 in energy bills annually. Those energy savings free up limited financial resources for essentials, like groceries and medicine.

In addition to traditional services like attic and wall insulation, the program also provides services that help with home health and safety measures, such as installing smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Energy efficient homes also help cut down on our carbon footprint, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

An independent study of the Weatherization Assistance Program by Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that children in weatherized households miss less school, improving educational outcomes. Adults miss less

work, increasing both their own incomes and their contributions to the economy. Families also reported experiencing fewer flu and cold symptoms and emergency room visits, decreasing costly medical expenses.

The Weatherization Assistance Program also helps boost our economy. The program supports over 8,500 jobs for energy experts and contractors, while increasing our national economic output by $1.2 billion.

The program is a win-win for all involved. That is why, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have led my colleagues in supporting strong funding for it every year. And that is why I am introducing this bill--to ensure it continues to work for years to come.

This bill will help expand the program to many more low-income households that are currently unable to receive weatherization services because their homes need minor structural repairs before then can be weatherized. The bill will authorize a Weatherization Readiness Fund to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance, increasing the number of homes the program is able to serve.

At the same time, it will raise the amount of funding allowed to be spent on each home to keep up with current labor and material costs, and it will raise the cap on the amount of funding allowed to be spent on renewable energy upgrades in each home. These provisions are essential updates to a program that has helped so many families over the past few decades.

I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for S. 316 and the repealing of the 1991 and 2002 authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF. I commend Senators Kaine and Young for their relentless work on this bill, and I am glad to be a cosponsor of it along with 43 of my colleagues.

I voted against the 2002 AUMF when it was introduced more than 20 years ago. And I can assure you that as we debated that bill at that time, no one would have believed that 20 years later we would be on the floor debating its repeal. The war against Saddam Hussein is long over, and our bilateral relationship with Iraq is fundamentally different today. In our current fight against violent extremists, the Biden administration has clearly stated it does not rely on the 2002 AUMF as the basis for any ongoing military operations.

Let's remember what the 2002 AUMF authorizes. The United States went to war, ``to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' The Bush administration alleged, falsely, that Iraq had amassed an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Bush administration officials also alleged that the Iraq Government had ties to the al-Qaida terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. These false pretenses and cherry-picked information provided the basis for Congress to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002--again, an authorization I opposed.

And this costly war of choice caused the United States irreparable harm. It caused us to take our eyes off violent extremist groups throughout the region and resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. It also forced us to take our eyes off Russia and China as they became peer competitors. As we spent billions of dollars investing in tactical vehicles to protect our troops in a counterinsurgency, as we spent billions of dollars to try to train Afghan forces, the Russians and the Chinese invested in hypersonic vehicles, in very sophisticated long- range precision strike weapons. And the Chinese have been building an entire navy since then. We paid little attention because we were preoccupied with Iraq.

And finally and ironically, our war in Iraq allowed Iran to become one of the most powerful and dangerous forces in the region, because we took out a block against their ambition, which had been Saddam Hussein and Iraq. As a result, we are paying, today, for those errors in judgment, and I think it is only fitting that we recognize it and repeal those AUMFs.

We have ongoing operations to suppress violent extremists. Beginning on 9/11 and going forward, we have been fighting anyone who has aspirations to use terror attacks against the U.S. homeland or our allies. That is as a result of the 2001 AUMF that essentially empowered our government to find and defeat terrorists, anywhere they are, who pose a threat to the United States and to our allies. Retaining the 2001 AUMF or an appropriate successor to that statute remains essential for the Defense Department's current counterterrorism operations, and Congress must continue to exercise robust oversight over its use.

Further, the Biden administration has drawn a clear distinction between the two Iraq AUMFs that would be repealed under S. 316 and the 2001 AUMF. The repeal of the two AUMFs would have no impact on our current operations, and as a domestic legal basis, no ongoing military activities rely solely on either the 1991 or the 2002 AUMF.

Leaving the 2002 authorization in place sends a harmful signal to Iraq, where our forces remain at the invitation of the Government of Iraq. Iraq is a critical partner now in our fight against ISIS and in our fight against Shia militias that are transiting Iraq and attacking our forces in Syria. We should not communicate to the Iraqi Government that the United States reserves the right to use force against its nation in the future. This is contrary to the cooperation that our military forces need to counter ISIS operations.

Further, keeping the 2002 AUMF provides a propaganda tool for Iran. The Iranian Government is constantly seeking to convince the Iraqis that Tehran, not Washington, is a more reliable partner. We face a real and growing threat from Iran, but the 2002 AUMF does not authorize the use of force against Iran, and it must not be relied on for that purpose now.

Finally, as laid out in the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war. We must exercise that responsibility with the utmost care when it comes to matters of the use of military force. Repealing AUMFs that have served their intended purposes and are no longer applicable to current military operations is fully consistent with the careful exercise of the Senate's constitutional responsibilities.

On that basis, I support S. 316 and the repeal of the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs. Again, I commend Senator Kaine for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we will overcome the major challenges of our time--addressing inequality, strengthening civil society and democratic institutions, and leaving a healthy, resilient planet to future generations. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities and an increased investment in those who serve.

The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the educational award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. Indeed, those who are willing to serve should not be left to carry a heavy financial burden of student loan debt. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will know about the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. It will mobilize a Civilian Climate Corps to address the urgent needs of hardest hit communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a National Service Foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities.

Madam President, it is time that we reinvigorate the social contract we have with each other by elevating service as a national value. We must also make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to sacrifice for our Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the GI Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers.

All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to.

I would like to thank Senators Coons, Baldwin, Brown, Blumenthal, Duckworth, and Klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, States for Service Coalition, Habitat for Humanity International, YouthBuild, Service Year, City Year, and With Honor Action, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our colleagues to join us in working for its passage so we can ensure that all who aspire to serve have the opportunity to do so.

Madam President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we will overcome the major challenges of our time--addressing inequality, strengthening civil society and democratic institutions, and leaving a healthy, resilient planet to future generations. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities and an increased investment in those who serve.

The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the educational award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. Indeed, those who are willing to serve should not be left to carry a heavy financial burden of student loan debt. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will know about the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. It will mobilize a Civilian Climate Corps to address the urgent needs of hardest hit communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a National Service Foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities.

Madam President, it is time that we reinvigorate the social contract we have with each other by elevating service as a national value. We must also make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to sacrifice for our Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the GI Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers.

All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to.

I would like to thank Senators Coons, Baldwin, Brown, Blumenthal, Duckworth, and Klobuchar for joining me as original cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, States for Service Coalition, Habitat for Humanity International, YouthBuild, Service Year, City Year, and With Honor Action, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our colleagues to join us in working for its passage so we can ensure that all who aspire to serve have the opportunity to do so.

Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, and Klobuchar in introducing legislation that would permanently reauthorize the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH.

The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over the last three and a half decades, it has brought Agencies from across the Federal Government together to coordinate efforts to address homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, nonprofit and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. With a small budget and a small staff, the Council has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying their resources in a smart, effective and coordinated fashion. The results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and veterans homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively. In fact, the Council has been able to help 83 communities and three States effectively end veteran homelessness.

Even with this progress, homelessness has persisted, and we have faced a growing challenge in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2022 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress found that, on ``a single night in 2022, roughly 582,500 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States,'' while the majority of individuals experiencing homelessness were living on the street or in other unsheltered locations and were not in homeless shelters. The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying economic effects have also pushed homelessness rates higher in many parts of the country. Indeed, the number of individuals experiencing homelessness increased in the majority of States between January 2020, and 2022, including a staggering 48 percent jump in my home State of Rhode Island.

USICH can help us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with nonfederal partners in order to help communities effectively address homelessness. We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``Based on 22 different studies from across the country, providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it can also save taxpayers money, and USICH helps make our investments to address homelessness more informed and more effective.

Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work and save money in the process. That is why we should permanently authorize USICH and why organizations like the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode Island Coalition to End Homelessness, and HousingWorks RI have supported our bill. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.