Carper, Coons oppose Trump Admin proposal to create duplicative, lower-quality unregistered apprenticeships

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons (both D-Del.) joined their Democratic colleagues in sending a letter to Acting Labor Secretary Patrick Pizzella opposing the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to undermine the highly effective and widely supported registered apprenticeship program. The proposed rule would create duplicative, unnecessary, and lower-quality “industry-recognized apprenticeship programs” (IRAPs), that would not provide the same crucial benefits and protections as long-established registered apprenticeships. The administration has also proposed the establishment of new “standard recognition entities” to oversee the IRAPs, allowing these programs to potentially evade accountability, even to apprentices themselves. 

“Rather than invest federal taxpayer dollars in a duplicative, less rigorous, and unproven model of workforce training with little to no accountability, the Department and the Trump Administration should work with Congress and stakeholders to strengthen and modernize the registered apprenticeship system to build more pathways for workers to enter middle class jobs,” wrote the Senators. 

The Senators also questioned whether the proposed rule is truly consistent with National Apprenticeship Act, which entrusted the Labor Department to “safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of apprentices.” In February, Senator Murray and her colleagues pressed the Department of Labor for answers on the proposed rule and raised questions about whether the Department was using funds appropriated by Congress for registered apprenticeships for IRAPs.

In addition to Senators Carper and Coons, the letter was signed by Senators Baldwin (D-WI), Bennet (D-CO), Blumenthal (D-CT), Booker (D-NJ), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Casey (D-PA), Cortez Masto (D-NV), Duckworth (D-IL), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Gillibrand (D-NY), Harris (D-CA), Hassan (D-NH), Heinrich (D-NM), Hirono (D-HI), Kaine (D-VA), King (I-ME), Klobuchar (D-MN), Leahy (D-VT), Manchin (D-WV), Markey (D-MA), Menendez (D-NJ), Merkley (D-OR), Murphy (D-CT), Murray (D-WA), Peters (D-MI), Reed (D-RI), Rosen (D-NV), Sanders (I-VT), Schatz (D-HI), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Smith (D-MN), Stabenow (D-MI), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-NM), Van Hollen (D-MD), Warner (D-VA), Warren (D-MA), Whitehouse (D-RI), and Wyden (D-OR).

Full text of the letter is below and the PDF is HERE. 

August 26, 2019

The Honorable Patrick Pizzella

Acting Secretary

Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

RE: DOL Docket Number. ETA-2019-000, RIN 1205-AB85, Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration, Amendment of Regulations

Dear Acting Secretary Pizzella:

We write in strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“Department” or DOL) proposed rule to create Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs or “Industry Programs”), and to request a 60-day extension of the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM would undermine important standards around wages, training structure and quality, and equal opportunity employment, would create uncertainty for the regulated community by establishing a confusing, unnecessary, and duplicative program, and disregards congressional intent to “safeguard the welfare of apprentices.”^[1]

In enacting the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, Congress authorized and directed the Secretary of Labor to formulate and promote labor standards to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of apprentices.^[2] The Department’s regulations implementing the Act establish such standards and prescribe policies and procedures for the registration of acceptable apprenticeship programs with the Department.^[3] Under the Department’s longstanding regulations, apprenticeship programs seeking the Department’s approval, support, and financial assistance must commit to providing apprentices with a number of crucial protections and benefits.

The Department’s proposal, however, would not guarantee most of these benefits to apprentices who participate in IRAPs instead of registered apprenticeships.  This NPRM would enable so-called Industry Programs to circumvent the quality assurance standards and protections of the registered apprenticeship system. Instead, the Department proposes to authorize new, nongovernmental Standards Recognition Entities (SREs) to establish, recognize, and monitor the quality of IRAPs—with minimal accountability to the federal government, states, or apprentices themselves. We are especially concerned that the Department’s purported hallmarks of quality for IRAPs do not include some of the most crucial standards required of registered apprenticeship programs. In particular, this proposal would not require IRAPs to guarantee: minimum hours or specific requirements for on-the-job training and classroom-based instruction, nationally recognized stackable and portable credentials of value, workplace safety and equal opportunity protections beyond those already required by law, or guaranteed wage progression.

It is not clear how the Department’s proposal to upend registered apprenticeship is consistent with Congressional intent. The National Apprenticeship Act empowers the Department to “bring together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of apprenticeships”—that is not what the Department proposes. Rather, this rule would create a parallel system that outsources the Secretary’s statutory role in overseeing the Nation’s registered apprenticeship programs to unaccountable, nongovernmental entities.

The Department’s proposal is yet one more attempt to undermine the Nation’s registered apprenticeship system, which has existed for 80 years and enjoys broad support from Congress, workers, and industry alike. The Department undercuts the standards that have been the hallmark of registered apprenticeships by allowing IRAPs to bypass the Department’s longstanding approval and quality assurance process, removing the crucial role of state governments in maintaining the integrity of programs operating within their states, substantially weakening protections and guarantees for workers, and causing confusion for businesses and industries. This is particularly troubling coming on the heels of the Department’s repeated attempts to divert the annual discretionary appropriation to support the development of IRAPs, despite the Department having acknowledged on record that it must be spent exclusively on the registered apprenticeships in accordance with the law.

The Department asserts its proposed “industry-led, market-driven approach provides the flexibility necessary to scale the apprenticeship model where it is needed most and helps address America’s skills gap.” However, the Department has presented no evidence showing IRAPS will be effective, let alone superior, to registered apprenticeship programs. On the contrary, existing apprenticeship programs have one of the highest rates of return on investment for employers of any workforce advancement programs.  Rather than invest federal taxpayer dollars in a duplicative, less rigorous, and unproven model of workforce training with little to no accountability, the Department and the Trump Administration should work with Congress and stakeholders to strengthen and modernize the registered apprenticeship system to build more pathways for workers to enter middle class jobs. 

We oppose the Department’s efforts to water down the quality of apprenticeship programs by removing worker protections, lowering the quality of credentials and training, and providing federal funds to unaccountable organizations to provide unproven training. We urge the Department to reconsider its proposal. We also request a 60-day extension of the public comment period for the NPRM to allow Congress, stakeholders, and the public adequate time to respond to these potential changes, as well as a Departmental briefing on the proposal as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

###

August 22: Sen. Coons, Office of Nat’l Drug Control Policy director to host opioid crisis event at UD’s STAR Campus

WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, and Director James Carroll, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, will convene local and national experts and stakeholders to discuss the current status of the opioid crisis in Delaware. The discussion will take place on Thursday, August 22, from 2:30 to 4:00 p.m. at the University of Delaware’s STAR Campus in Newark. The event is free and open to the public.

The conversation will involve families, first responders, law enforcement agencies, and the addiction and recovery communities. The event aims to cover available federal resources in Delaware, such as the Drug-Free Communities Support Program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.

Guests are asked to register by visiting https://www.eventbrite.com/e/addressing-delawares-opioid-crisis-tickets-69415001137. Since seating is limited, registered attendees will be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis. Press is invited to attend.

WHO: U.S. Senator Chris Coons
Director James Carroll, Office of National Drug Control Policy
University of Delaware’s Partnership for Healthy Communities
Members of Delaware’s law enforcement and first responder community
Members of Delaware’s health care community
Members of Delaware’s non-profit addiction recovery community

WHAT: A roundtable discussion on the opioid crisis in Delaware and federal, state, and local response efforts. The event is free and open to the public.

WHEN: Thursday, August 22, 2019, at 2:30 p.m.

WHERE: University of Delaware STAR Campus
Tower at STAR, 100 Discovery Blvd, Newark, DE 19713

PRESS RSVP: Brendan Mackie at 302-573-6054 or Brendan_Mackie@coons.senate.gov

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons: “It’s great to provide comfort and prayers, but it’s more important that we take bipartisan action”

WILMINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) joined FOX News to discuss bipartisan legislation to address gun violence in the wake of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

“I think it’s also important for all of us who are elected to serve our nation to find ways to come together and to address the problem. It’s great to provide comfort and prayers, but it’s more important that we take bipartisan action,” said Senator Coons.

Video and audio available here. 

Excerpts from the interview are below:

How do you feel President Trump’s visits to El Paso and Dayton went?

Senator Coons: Well, I think it’s important that our President, when we have tragedies, national tragedies, make a visit, be with those who are suffering, be with those who are trying to make sense of these tragedies. I think it’s also important for all of us who are elected to serve our nation to find ways to come together and to address the problem. It’s great to provide comfort and prayers, but it’s more important that we take bipartisan action.

How do you feel about comments calling President Trump a white supremacist or a racist?

Senator Coons: I was pleased to hear President Trump directly denounce white supremacists and say that hate doesn’t belong in our country, but I also think he needs to address his rhetoric. And I think that we’re in for a rough presidential season if there is more and more divisive rhetoric on both sides. I was puzzled by the ways in which the President attacked some of the folks—the Mayor of Dayton, Senator Sherrod Brown—after their visit. There seems to be a disagreement about who said what about whom, when, in those visits. The larger point, frankly, here is that we need to find ways to legislate together. And the President’s leadership on taking real steps on background checks will be critical. Both the Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, and the Congressman from Dayton, Mike Turner, and the Republican Senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, have now stepped forward and called for more decisive action. There is legislation we can take up and pass.

What would expanded background checks look like?

Senator Coons: I was encouraged because Senator Toomey and I have a bill, the NICS Denial Notification Act, that Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee, with whom I also spoke, has already said he thinks can and should pass. All my bill with Pat Toomey would do is make sure state and local law enforcement is promptly notified if someone who is a convicted felon, someone who is prohibited by law from buying a gun, goes into a gun store and lies and tries to buy a gun. In my state and more than thirty other states currently, that information goes nowhere. In Pennsylvania, state police are the intermediary with the NICS system. They know about it. In some cases, they act promptly. Broader background checks, such as the Manchin-Toomey bill, would close some of the loopholes that currently exist – the gun show loophole, for example. And this is broadly supported by Americans who are Democrats, Independents, Republicans, by a majority of gun owners, because it simply means there would be one more layer of protection to ensure that those Americans who are exercising their Second Amendment right are doing so responsibly and that we are taking action to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.

What can we do to protect privacy and due process, but also prevent people with violent intentions from owning a gun?

Senator Coons: Back in March, we had a constructive hearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee about these emergency risk protection orders, or so-called “red flag” laws. We have one in Delaware. I think we can and should have one federally that allows family members, that allows law enforcement, with due process, to take notice of the fact that an individual is doing things, like you just referenced, making kill lists and threatening to kill people, and speaking to their teachers and classmates and parents in a way that’s genuinely disturbing. The Parkland shooter was someone who had engaged in that kind of a pattern. His own family, if I remember correctly, had called the police and said, “He is going to do something terrible. We need help.” We have to make it easier for families, for health care professionals, for teachers, and law enforcement, with due process, in those emergency situations, to take action. I think we need to do all of these – background checks, “red flag” laws, the NICS Denial Act. This is going to take Presidential leadership. And a great way that President Trump can bring us together is to show leadership on this issue.

###

Sens. Coons, Toomey call for bipartisan action to improve gun safety laws

WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) released the following statement in support of bipartisan congressional action to improve gun safety laws:

“The only way to make necessary progress on improving the nation’s gun safety laws is through bipartisan action. Strengthening our firearm background check system is an area where this is possible. In addition to expanding the scope of background checks, Congress should promptly pass the bipartisan NICS Denial Notification Act to ensure that state and local law enforcement are notified when someone prohibited from purchasing a gun attempts to do so.”

The NICS Denial Notification Act provides states with critical information to help them enforce existing laws against individuals who attempt to purchase firearms but have no legal right to do so. Under this measure, federal authorities would now be required to alert state law enforcement within 24 hours when individuals “lie and try” to purchase firearms, which can be a warning sign of additional criminal behavior.

Federal officials are notified when individuals who are legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm (such as convicted felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers) try to buy a gun but fail a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check. These attempted purchases often violate federal and state laws. Unfortunately, the federal government rarely prosecutes any of these individuals.

In the 13 states that run their own background checks using the FBI’s NICS system, state authorities are aware when prohibited persons fail background checks and can have state law enforcement investigate these cases. However, in the 37 states and the District of Columbia that rely on the FBI to run some or all of their background checks, state authorities generally are not aware when prohibited persons fail background checks run by the FBI. Individuals who are willing to “lie and try” to buy a gun may be dangerous and willing to obtain guns through other means. As a result, these states and D.C. lack critical law enforcement intelligence that they could use to try to keep their communities safe.

In addition to Senators Coons and Toomey, the NICS Denial Notification Act is also co-sponsored by Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). 
About the NICS Denial Notification Act:

• Requires federal authorities to alert state law enforcement of background checks denials, so that state authorities can decide whether to investigate, prosecute, and/or keep an eye on these denied individuals for signs of future criminal activity.
• Requires DOJ to publish an annual report with statistics about its prosecution of background check denial cases, so Congress and voters can hold federal officials accountable.
• Endorsed by: Fraternal Order of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Police Association; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; National District Attorneys Association; Firearms Owners Against Crime; National Domestic Violence Hotline; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Everytown for Gun Safety; Giffords

###   

Sens. Coons, Lankford send bipartisan letter to Trump Administration in response to proposed elimination of refugee resettlements

WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and James Lankford (R-OK) sent a bipartisan letter to the Trump Administration to express their concerns about reports of a proposed elimination of refugee resettlements for FY2020. 

The Senators wrote, “While some Members of Congress have already expressed their displeasure with the FY2019 resettlement cap, and the lower-than-normal admittance numbers for FY2017 and FY2018, eliminating refugee admittance altogether is even more alarming. At a time when we are facing the ‘highest levels of displacement on record,’ according to the United Nations Refugee Agency, we urge you to increase the refugee resettlement cap and to admit as many refugees as possible within that cap. America has a responsibility to promote compassion and democracy around the world through assistance to vulnerable and displaced people.”

In addition to Senators Coons and Lankford, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators John Thune (R-SD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Rob Portman (R-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Ed Markey (D-MA).

A copy of the letter can be found here.

August 5, 2019

The Honorable Michael R. Pompeo

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20520

The Honorable Alex M. Azar II

Secretary of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

The Honorable Kevin K. McAleenan

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

245 Murray Lane, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretaries Pompeo, Azar, and McAleenan,

We write to you today regarding the upcoming refugee resettlement presidential determination for FY2020, and to express our sincere concerns about reports that some officials in the administration have proposed eliminating refugee resettlements for FY2020, despite humanitarian crises, including genocide, around the world.

Since its inception, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) has resettled more than 3 million refugees to American communities in all 50 states. These refugees are part of a diverse American culture and flourishing economy.

While some Members of Congress have already expressed their displeasure with the FY2019 resettlement cap, and the lower-than-normal admittance numbers for FY2017 and FY2018, eliminating refugee admittance altogether is even more alarming. At a time when we are facing the “highest levels of displacement on record,” according to the United Nations Refugee Agency, we urge you to increase the refugee resettlement cap and to admit as many refugees as possible within that cap. America has a responsibility to promote compassion and democracy around the world through assistance to vulnerable and displaced people. 

As you know, individuals fleeing their countries because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion qualify for refugee status. All refugees go through a legal process and are some of the most well-vetted travelers in the world. USRAP screening includes both biometric and biographic checks, which occur at multiple stages throughout the process, including immediately after the preliminary Resettlement Support Center interview, before a refugee’s departure to the United States, and on arrival in the U.S. at a port of entry. Resources have already been devoted to vetting refugees, some of whom have been awaiting placement for months. The latest pipeline report shows nearly 9,000 refugees are at the “Ready For Departure” stage in the screening process, and another 30,000 individuals have completed their U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interview. Even if no other refugee started to go through the screening process, there are already enough people in line to max out this year’s cap and welcome additional refugees in FY2020.

While we share the concern about the humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border, we disagree that eliminating refugee admittance would somehow alleviate the flow of individuals without proper documentation crossing between ports of entry. On the contrary, the United States has the ability to use refugee admittance to process individuals and families from Northern Triangle countries, which could allow for a decrease in asylum-seekers, especially those with children, at the border. It is inconsistent to maintain policies that promote in-country asylum and simultaneously eliminate the legal refugee process.

The USRAP program is a critical pillar of our national security and foreign policy, and enables the United States to fulfill key international commitments. Resettlement eases the burden on countries in conflict zones, which in turn increases global security and reduces the risk of refugees spending long periods of time in situations of vulnerability. Resettlement also contributes significantly to the United States’ identity as a humanitarian actor in the international community, bolstering our negotiating capacities, increasing our soft power, and demonstrating the United States’ continued commitment to human rights. 

We were especially surprised to hear reports of the elimination or severe decrease in proposed refugee resettlement on the heels of the State Department’s Second Ministerial for International Religious Freedom, where survivors of severe persecution came to the United States to share testimonies of unimaginable human rights atrocities. America has an obvious interest in demonstrating and promoting freedom of religion to the world, including accepting refugees who flee persecution because of their faith. In fact, the administration acknowledges the partnership between refugee admission and protection of inherent human rights in both the 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom and the 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. 

As we approach the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Refugee Act (Public Law 96-212), the benefits of resettling refugees remain clear and significant. Refugee populations significantly benefit local and national economies. Economists have found that refugees ultimately contribute billions more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and that refugees are more likely to start their own businesses and create jobs. In 2015 alone, more than 180,000 refugee-owned enterprises generated $4.6 billion in business income, more than the United States’ annual budget for refugee resettlement. 

At a time when global leadership is needed more than ever to solve the complex refugee problem — both at home and abroad — the United States is well-positioned to continue its long legacy as a protector of human rights. Refugee resettlement combines the compassion of America with an important tool necessary to pursue foreign policy objectives. The United States will continue to benefit from the talent, drive, and ambition of resettled refugees who seek freedom, and the refugee resettlement determination for FY2020 should reflect those goals.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons on the shootings in El Paso and Dayton

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) joined MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt on Sunday night to discuss the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio and the challenges posed by domestic terrorism and white nationalism.

“It’s been a really striking weekend,” said Senator Coons. “The idea that we’ve had, in two different incidents, so far apart in our country, but so tragically close in their circumstances, 29 killed, 50 or so injured, and as you’ve just described in detail in the last segment. It’s clear that the motivations of the El Paso shooter were racist and were violent and were intent on causing as much carnage as possible. There are things we can and should do.”

“We have a challenge with domestic terrorism from folks who are motivated by bigotry and racial hatred,” said Senator Coons. “We also have ongoing concerns about extremism of other kinds. And the challenge we were trying to address in that oversight hearing was making sure that we are dedicating an appropriate amount of law enforcement resources to investigating, interrupting, blocking, stopping act of terrorism in the United States, and being clear eyed about ways in which rhetoric nationally, by the President and others, can encourage or give a sense of support for folks who are motivated to commit acts of extremism.”

Video and audio available here. 

Excerpts from the interview are below:

Senator Coons on action the Senate could take right now to prevent gun violence: It’s been a really striking weekend. The idea that we’ve had, in two different incidents, so far apart in our country, but so tragically close in their circumstances, 29 killed, 50 or so injured, and as you’ve just talked described in detail in the last segment. It’s clear that the motivations of the El Paso shooter were racist and were violent and were intent on causing as much carnage as possible. There are things we can and should do. We should go back into session in the Senate. First, let me remind you, that the House passed a bipartisan enhanced background check bill 150 days ago and sent it over to the Senate. It has been sitting, waiting for action on the Senate floor. All Mitch McConnell has to do is call it up for a vote. I also am the co-sponsor of a bill with Senator Pat Toomey, who you just had on in a clip from the Parkland debate, that would provide notification to local law enforcement when someone who is prohibited from owning a weapon goes into a federally registered firearm dealer, tries to buy– they lie and try– so they check the box on the background check form that says, nope, I’m allowed to buy this, they run it through the NICS system, the National Background Check System, come back and say, actually, you’re prohibited. Right now, in more than 30 states, including my home state of Delaware, nothing happens with that information. In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey’s home state, state police are notified and they arrested several hundred people last year for committing that crime of lying and trying to buy a weapon. It is an excellent predictor that someone is then going to go try and get a gun either through a straw purchaser or through the gun show loophole or by stealing it, so this strikes me as simple, common sense bipartisan legislation we should be able to pass. The Chairman of the Judiciary has committed to passing it. We also recently have a strong hearing on extreme risk protection orders, on ways in which we could identify circumstances such as happened in Parkland, Florida, where a deranged individual is clearly intent on using violence and owns a weapon that would allow for an expedited process. There are things we can do. We have to do more than express our concern and talk about thoughts and prayers. 

Senator Coons on Majority Leader McConnell’s refusal to take up gun control legislation passed in the House: Let’s be clear again: The House has taken up and passed several pieces of legislation that would address these challenges we have with gun violence. And we have had hearings in Senate Judiciary Committee. The challenge is the Republican Majority Leader and his refusal to give time on the floor for there to be a vote. The challenge is that we have a Republican majority in the Senate, just to be blunt about it, that has not stepped forward and taken action on a number of different bills that really could help address the problem we have in the United States of gun laws not being thoroughly enforced and of guns getting in the hands of the wrong people. That’s why there aren’t laws being passed. President Trump, in the clip that you just played right after Parkland, saying he would be willing to sign legislation, but has backed off of that position. I think we ought to call the question. We ought to come back into session and make it clear who’s willing to take action, and who isn’t. I think that Majority Leader McConnell has refused to take up responsible, bipartisan legislation that would deal with emergency risk protection order or deal with high capacity magazines or with banning weapons of war from the streets of our cities or would deal with enhanced background checks. Senator Toomey made a determined effort with Senator Manchin of West Virginia a number of years ago to try to pass enhanced background checks and was unsuccessful, largely because the Majority Leader was unwilling to give it time on the floor of the Senate. That’s where responsibility for this lies. 

Senator Coons on the importance of addressing domestic terrorism and white nationalism: I think that we should, all of us in Congress, be recognizing that we have a real challenge in our country with domestic terrorism and white nationalism. We had a recent oversight hearing on the Judiciary Committee. FBI Director Chris Wray, who was nominated by President Trump, confirmed by the Senate, spoke directly about the real challenge we have in our country. We have a challenge with domestic terrorism from folks who are motivated by bigotry and racial hatred. We also have ongoing concerns about extremism of other kinds. And the challenge we were trying to address in that Oversight hearing was making sure that we are dedicating an appropriate amount of law enforcement resources to investigating, interrupting, blocking, stopping act of terrorism in the United States, and being clear eyed about ways in which rhetoric nationally, by the President and others, can encourage or give a sense of support for folks who are motivated to commit acts of extremism. Obviously, the President is not directly responsible for the individual in El Paso. You can’t really ascribe the motivation of a deranged individual to specific things said by the President, but I will say that I agree that the President’s rhetoric contributes to a national environment that encourages this sort of hatred.

###

Sen. Coons pushes for equal retirement benefits for Guardsmen and Reservists in annual defense bill

WILMINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urging them to support early retirement benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve forces who deploy on certain preplanned missions overseas under what’s known as “12304b” authority. Since this authority was created, more than 18,000 Guardsmen, including members of the Delaware National Guard, have deployed in support of critical missions around the world. Yet, these service members don’t receive the same benefits as active duty service members deployed on the same missions.

Last Congress, Senator Coons introduced bipartisan legislation, the National Guard and Reserves Benefits Parity Act, which aimed to close this benefits gap. Two of the bill’s provisions passed into law in the Fiscal Year 2019 defense authorization bill, ensuring that Guardsmen and Reservists can receive a monthly allowance while deployed under this authority and are protected from a reduction in pay if they are federal civilian employees. The final provision from the National Guard and Reserves Benefits Parity Act – reducing the age at which Guardsmen and Reservists can receive retirement pay by three months for every 90 days they are deployed under this authority – is currently included in the Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. Senator Coons led a bipartisan group of colleagues in sending a letter to the senators negotiating the final Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization bill, urging them to retain this provision in the final legislation. 

Joining Senator Coons in sending the letter are Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

Read the full text of the letter here or below.

August 2, 2019

The Honorable James Inhofe                                     The Honorable Jack Reed

Chairman                                                                     Ranking Member

Senate Armed Services Committee                            Senate Armed Services Committee
Russell Senate Building, Room 228                           Russell Senate Building, Room 228
Washington, D.C. 20510                                            Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed:

Thank you for your leadership in developing a bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 that supports our service members and strengthens our security.  As you negotiate a conference report for the NDAA, we urge you to retain the provision below, which is included in H.R. 2500, the House’s Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA.

Section 627. Consideration of service on active duty to reduce age of eligibility forretired pay for non-regular service. Section 12731(f)(2)(B)(i) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking “under a provision of law referred to in section101(a)(13)(B) or under section 12301(d)” and inserting “under section 12301(d) or12304b of this title, or under a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B).”

Last year, we cosponsored S. 2416, the bipartisan National Guard and Reserves Benefits Parity Act, which aimed to close the benefits gap for members of the National Guard and Reserve forces deployed under 12304b authority.  We appreciated your inclusion of two of the bill’s provisions in the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA, which ensured that Guardsmen and Reservists can receive a monthly allowance while deployed under 12304b authority and are protected from a reduction in pay if they are federal civilian employees.  Section 627 of H.R. 2500 would address the final gap by reducing the age at which Guardsmen and Reservists can receive retirement pay by three months for every 90 days they are deployed on certain preplanned missions overseas.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your continued work to ensure that Guardsmen and Reservists receive the support they deserve for their service to our country.

Sens. Carper, Coons urge CRAs to provide free credit monitoring to all active duty service members

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Carper and Coons (both D-Del.) sent a letter to the three major Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) urging that they provide free credit monitoring to all active duty service members. A new law, authored by Senators Carper and Coons and enacted in May 2018, was intended to require the CRAs to provide free credit monitoring for all active duty service members. However, final rules released last month by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) only require the service to be provided to service members while they are assigned to a mission away from their duty station. This limited definition could result in service members receiving unequal consumer protection. 

“Active duty service members have sacrificed to serve our country, and we know they are disproportionately targeted for identity theft,” the Senators wrote. “Providing this service more broadly than is technically required would make a profound difference.  For example, an active duty airman assigned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware who received free credit monitoring while deployed in Afghanistan would be better protected from identify theft if his or her credit monitoring continues after returning to their station.  This service member would not be eligible for the intended credit monitoring for most of his or her active duty career, as members typically spend most of their careers assigned to their ‘usual duty station.’”

During the law’s rulemaking process, the Department of Defense (DoD) advised that restricting the free credit monitoring service to those “assigned to service away from the usual duty station” is severely limiting, and “could result in Service members receiving unequal protection based on their individual component, duty status, or location.” Several veteran and military service organizations echoed DoD’s concerns, saying, “[W]e believe the FTC should defer to DoD’s definition of active duty status and active status for the National Guard and Reserve.”

The Senators continue, “Your organizations could provide a great service to our men and women in uniform by going above and beyond the letter of law to provide free credit monitoring to all of our active-duty service members.”

Full text of the letter is here and below:

Dear Mr. Begor, Mr. Cassin, and Mr. Cartwright

We write to you regarding the implementation of the credit monitoring provisions applicable to active duty military consumers in section 302(d) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law No. 115-174), which was enacted in May 2018.

As you know, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act contains a provision we authored that requires credit reporting agencies to offer their electronic credit monitoring services to all active duty military service members, including reservists and guardsmen, free of charge.  We are pleased that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) promulgated regulations pursuant to the requirements of this subsection on June 24, 2019.  As Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs), you will play a critical role in ensuring these brave men and women have the tools necessary to protect their financial well-being by carrying out this free service.

However, in the FTC’s final rule, a limited definition of ‘active duty military consumer’ is utilized and only applies to an individual who is (A) on active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10) or is a reservist performing duty under a call or order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13) of title 10; and (B) is assigned to service away from the usual duty station of the consumer.  As the authors of this provision, we wish to make clear that it was neither our intent, nor the intent of Congress, to limit the free credit monitoring to only active duty service members assigned to service away from their usual duty station.

During the FTC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Defense (DoD) filed a comment stating that the limited definition of ‘active duty military consumer’ “could result in Service members receiving unequal protection based on their individual component, duty status, or location.”   The comment went on to say, “the statutory requirement for the member to be ‘assigned to service away from the usual duty station’ is severely limiting.”  Given this, we urge the CRAs to define ‘active duty military consumer’ for the purposes of this subsection as “a consumer who is on full-time duty in military service of the United States, which includes full-time training duty; annual training duty; full-time National Guard duty; and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned,” consistent with DoD’s guidance and recommendation. 

In addition to DoD, a number of organizations filed comments expressing concern with the limited definition.  A collection of veteran and military organizations echoed DoD’s concerns, saying, “[W]e believe the FTC should defer to DoD’s definition of active duty status and active status for the National Guard and Reserve.”

Active duty service members have sacrificed to serve our country, and we know they are disproportionately targeted for identity theft.  According to the FTC, members of the military face nearly double the risk of identity theft than other consumers face, in part because military families relocate frequently, and because many service members are living on their own and earning a paycheck for the first time.^[1]

Providing this service more broadly than is technically required would make a profound difference.  For example, an active duty airman assigned to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware who received free credit monitoring while deployed in Afghanistan would be better protected from identify theft if his or her credit monitoring continues after returning to their station.  This service member would not be eligible for the intended credit monitoring for most of his or her active duty career, as members typically spend most of their careers assigned to their “usual duty station.”

We intend to clarify the statute so that this law applies to all active duty service members.  In the meantime, your organizations could provide a great service to our men and women in uniform by going above and beyond the letter of law to provide free credit monitoring to all of our active duty service members.  Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Carper, Coons Join Colleagues in Introducing Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons (both D-Del.) joined Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in introducing the Democracy for All Amendment – a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and other disastrous court decisions, help get big money out of politics, and put power back in the hands of the American people.

Citizens United and other disastrous Supreme Court decisions have unleashed a flood of unlimited corporate spending in U.S. elections and opened the door for wealthy special interests to have an outsized voice in our government. These decisions have wrongfully equated money with free speech, and wrongfully determined that big, wealthy corporations have the same first amendment rights as people. The Democracy for All Amendment gives the power back to Congress and the states to set reasonable campaign finance rules and limit corporate spending in elections. The amendment would enshrine in the Constitution the right of the American people to regulate the raising and spending of funds in public elections, and curb the concentration of political influence held by the wealthiest Americans. 

“Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account,” said Senator Carper. “Every American also deserves to know who is funding the campaigns of candidates seeking elected office. Nine years ago, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision upended decades’ worth of campaign  finance laws, allowing a few wealthy individuals to wield disproportionate influence over the electoral process in secret. Americans of all political affiliations want more transparency when it comes to our elections – not less. That’s why I’m proud to join Senators Udall and Shaheen, and all of my Senate Democratic colleagues, in introducing a straightforward constitutional amendment that will restore the health and integrity of our campaign finance system.”       

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to eliminate aggregate limits on the amount of money an individual can give to a political campaign is potentially one of the most damaging I have seen since joining the Senate.  The decision allows the wealthiest Americans and the corporations they represent to have even greater influence in our democracy.  One step at a time, the Supreme Court has dismantled our efforts in Congress to limit the influence of money in the political process.  This amendment would bring much needed transparency back to our campaign finance laws and give all Americans an equal voice in our elections.  I am proud to join my Democratic colleagues in introducing this important, commonsense amendment to restore integrity to our electoral process,” said Senator Coons.

In the 2014 election cycle alone, a record-breaking amount—nearly $4 billion—was spent on campaigns across the country. It’s another reminder that Congress needs to take immediate action to restore some sanity to our broken campaign finance system. Today, I’m once again proud to join the efforts being led by my friends and colleagues, Senators Tom Udall and Sheldon Whitehouse, to shine much-needed light on political spending and to restore the long-understood ability of Congress to enact common sense campaign finance legislation.”

“Thanks to Citizens United and other disastrous court decisions, our electoral system – and as a result, our democracy – have reached a crisis point,” said Senator Udall. “Ever since the Supreme Court ruled to open the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in our elections, secret special interest money has poured in – and drowned out the voices of the American people. And the door has opened even wider for the ultra-wealthy and well-connected to root themselves in our government and pull the levers of our democracy. Now, citizens are losing faith in our institutions because they have every reason to believe that their government no longer answers to them. It’s time to restore the power of the American people to regulate the out-of-control, secret spending in our elections, and make sure that our elections aren’t put up for sale to the highest bidder. Our Democracy for All Amendment would help unrig the system and put power back in the hands of all Americans, instead of a privileged and powerful few.”

“Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, our political system has been flooded with money from special interest groups,” said Senator Shaheen. “We have also seen the growing influence of dark money pouring into our elections. Dark money allows secret groups with hidden agendas, even foreign actors, to influence elections without disclosing their political donations. We need only look to the 2016 presidential election to understand the lengths that foreign adversaries are willing to go to attempt to influence our elections and sow confusion in the electoral process. This legislation would help shore up our elections from these malign efforts and also reclaim the integrity of our political process by ensuring elected representatives reflect the will of the public, not special interests.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates for dark money to pour into our elections and tipped the scales in favor of the ultra-wealthy and the most powerful corporations,” said Leader Schumer. “The Democracy for All Amendment would undo the tremendous damage done by this decision. It is the best antidote to the surge of unlimited, undisclosed money that’s poisoned our politics and deepened the swamp. Senate Democrats are determined to fix a system that remains beholden to big corporations and put power back in the hands of hardworking Americans.”

Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by U.S. Representative Ted Deutch (D-Fla.). In addition to Udall, Shaheen, and Schumer, the Democracy for All Amendment is co-sponsored by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus: U.S. Senators Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Angus King (I-Maine), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz).

The Democracy for All Amendment is backed by a broad range of campaign finance and government reform advocates, including End Citizens United, People For the American Way, Public Citizen, American Promise, Common Cause, Free Speech For People, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

The full text of the amendment is available here. A background summary is available here, and a section-by-section with FAQs is available here.

Coons, Sullivan introduce E-SERVICE Act to better protect survivors of domestic violence

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) introduced S. 2397, the Electronic Service for Effectiveness, Reduction of Violence, and Improved Court Efficiency (E-SERVICE) Act, legislation to push protection orders into the 21^st century, establishing new pilot program grants to explore the electronic service of protection orders. 

“Civil protection orders play a crucial role in our justice system,” said Senator Coons. “When protection orders are not served, survivors of domestic violence remain vulnerable. I am pleased to work with Senator Sullivan on the E-SERVICE Act, a bill to incentivize pilot programs for electronic service of civil protection orders. By encouraging law enforcement, victims’ advocates, defense counsel, and court personnel to work together, this bill has the potential to advance public safety, judicial efficiency, and due process.”

“Women in abusive situations rely on the force of a court order to protect themselves and, oftentimes, their children,” said Senator Sullivan. “Unfortunately, we know that traditional methods of properly serving an order can be expensive, dangerous, and shockingly ineffective. Perpetrators are often able to evade delivery, making orders useless and unenforceable. Senator Coons and I have introduced the E-SERVICE Act to allow courts to explore solutions to these challenges by sending orders directly to a perpetrator electronically, saving time and taxpayer dollars in the process, and better protecting victims.”

The E-SERVICE Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Justice to award up to 10 pilot programs to state and tribal courts, offering them the opportunity to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of serving protection orders electronically. The awarded courts will consult with various local stakeholders in developing and implementing the program, including judges, law enforcement, attorneys, technology experts, and victims’ advocates. The courts are required to report to Congress on the effectiveness, technology utilized, due process concerns, and best practices that could be considered for nationwide implementation.

The legislation has been endorsed by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and Jewish Women International.

“We are so grateful to Senator Sullivan and Senator Coons for introducing this life-saving bill that will encourage electronic service of protection orders,” said Ruth Glenn, CEO and president of NCADV. “So many abusers are able to evade service under our current antiquated and under-resourced systems. This bill will bring service of protection orders into the twenty-first century, creating better enforcement options and greater survivor safety.”