New York City Bar opposes effort to prevent American businesses from filing in Wilmington’s bankruptcy court

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the New York City Bar published a report explaining their opposition to the Bankruptcy Venue Reform Act, legislation that would alter the existing criteria for determining proper venue for bankruptcy cases.

U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) has publicly opposed this legislation, which would deny most American businesses the ability to file for Chapter 11 in Wilmington’s nationally known bankruptcy court. Delaware’s federal bankruptcy practice is one of the key pillars of the local Delaware economy. 

To view the full report, click here.

 ###

Sen. Coons, colleagues: Trump Administration’s inaction on Russia sanctions is unacceptable

WASHINGTON – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) joined a letter led by U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressing concern that six months after Congress overwhelmingly passed mandatory sanctions measures to hold Russia accountable for their destabilizing activities against our country and nations around the world, the Trump Administration has imposed no new sanctions.

President Trump signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) into law in August 2017 after both the House and Senate nearly unanimously passed the legislation.

“This is unacceptable,” the Senators wrote. “By imposing no new sanctions under CAATSA mandates, the U.S. remains vulnerable to an emboldened Russian government in advance of this November’s congressional elections.” 

Joining Senators Cardin and Brown on the letter to Secretary Tillerson are U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

January 29, 2018 was a date mandated in the law, Section 231, for the Administration to report to Congress on sanctions designations for foreign countries or their entities who do business with certain Russian defense and intelligence sector elements. The Administration announced there would be no sanctions impositions at this time. “While there is deterrent value in Section 231, it is only effective if potential targets believe that the threat of sanctions is genuine. Yesterday’s statement by the State Department unfortunately fell short of sending a strong signal that the U.S. is fully prepared to impose these secondary sanctions in the vent of a violation,” the Senators said. 

In their letter, the Senators also point out that beyond the defense and intelligence sectors, the administration has not imposed any new sanctions under the other CAATSA mandatory provisions, such as in the areas of cybersecurity, human rights, crude oil, and foreign financial institutions, among others. 

“[T]his magnifies a concern that the Trump administration’s policies on Russia do not fully reflect the clear congressional intent described in the legislation,” the Senators added. 

The Senators’ full letter to Secretary Tillerson is below and available at this link:

Dear Secretary Tillerson: 

We are writing to express concern that the administration has imposed no new sanctions required under the mandatory provisions in the Counteracting America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), though the law was enacted six months ago. This is unacceptable. 

This law, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, was developed in response to the Russian government’s interference in the 2016 election, its continued aggression in Ukraine and to deter such behavior in the future.  By imposing no new sanctions under CAATSA mandates, the U.S. remains vulnerable to an emboldened Russian government in advance of this November’s congressional elections.  CIA Director Michael Pompeo was asked in an interview this week if Russia would try to influence the mid-term elections in the United States.  He replied, “Of course. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that.” With that in mind, we as a government should be doing everything in our power to deter this behavior, starting with robust implementation of the CAATSA law. 

We urge you to renew your efforts to counter this urgent threat to our democratic process.   This letter summarizes our current concerns with respect to implementation. 

Unimplemented Provisions in CAATSA

We acknowledge and welcome the administration’s efforts to use authorities under Obama-era executive orders to roll out sanctions maintenance packages related to the Russian government’s invasion of Ukraine and illegal occupation of Crimea.  Last month, we also welcomed the implementation of sanctions packages under the Global and Russia Magnitsky Acts. 

Despite these positive developments and having issued guidance on several CAATSA provisions, the administration has not imposed any new sanctions under the CAATSA’s mandatory provisions.  Again, this magnifies a concern that the Trump administration’s policies on Russia do not fully reflect the clear congressional intent described in the legislation. During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee briefing next week, we expect the administration to provide a full explanation as to why it has not imposed mandatory sanctions under the following provisions of the law:

·         Sec. 224: Sanctions with respect to activities of the Russian Federation undermining cybersecurity;

·         Sec. 225: Sanctions related to special Russian crude oil products;

·         Sec. 226: Sanctions with respect to Russian and other foreign financial institutions;

·         Sec. 227. Sanctions with respect to significant corruption in the Russian Federation;

·         Sec. 228: Sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanctions evaders and serious human rights abusers in the Russian Federation;

·         Sec. 231: Mandatory Sanctions with respect to persons engaging in transactions with the intelligence and defense sectors of the Government of the Russian Federation.

·         Sec. 233: Sanctions with respect to investment in or facilitation of privatization of state-owned assets by the Russian Federation; and

·         Sec. 234: Sanctions with respect to the transfer of arms and related materiel to Syria.

Specific Concerns on Section 231 Implementation:

A recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority committee report on Russian interference in democratic institutions in Europe made clear that President Trump has not prioritized countering the growing threat posed by the Russian Federation to the United States and our allies.  While there is deterrent value in Section 231, it is only effective if potential targets believe that the threat of sanctions is genuine.  Yesterday’s statement by the State Department unfortunately fell short of sending a strong signal that the U.S. is fully prepared to impose these secondary sanctions in the event of a violation.  We expect that future statements and actions from your department will make clear the resolve of the United States to act to protect our democratic institutions.  

As you know, Section 231 of the law was mandated in order to target the income streams of entities in the defense and intelligence sectors, given the sectors’ responsibility for the attack on our political process in 2016.  While we respect the classified nature of some of the information related to your decision making, we urge you to make as much information as possible public so that the American people understand the actions you are taking to implement the sanctions.  Moreover, this would act as a public warning to others contemplating working with entities in the Russian defense and intelligence sectors.

We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to engage with the Senate on this issue and we thank you for your letter regarding Section 231, dated January 29^th.  We understand that senior State Department officials will be made available to brief the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next week.  To further understand the administration’s actions, we request that you address the following issues with respect to Section 231: 

1.      Has any person, as defined under the law, conducted a significant transaction with the defense and intelligence sectors of the Russian Federation since August 2, 2017?

2.      If so, why has the administration decided not to make a determination that the significant transaction had taken place?

3.      Without any such determinations, the president was not required to make a formal certification that would delay the imposition of sanctions. With that in mind, how will you implement the law moving forward?  Without a baseline determination of current significant transactions with the defense and intelligence sectors, how will you determine whether a person has made substantial reductions?  These questions on how you will define a “significant transaction,” as well as a “substantial reduction” remain unclear.

4.      How has the administration specifically prevented significant transactions from taking place over the past six months?  Can you attach a specific dollar amount to these efforts?  While we understand the sensitive nature of this diplomacy, we would urge the administration to publicly share as much information as possible to show the deterrent effect of your actions.

5.      We are especially concerned about Russia’s defense relationships with Syria, in the context of war crimes that have occurred in Syria’s civil war.  How does the administration define a significant transaction in the context of Russian government “in kind” support to the Syrian regime’s war effort?  Could such a relationship be considered sanctionable under CAATSA? 

6.      Please describe in detail your personal efforts made to convince potential violators to substantially reduce significant transactions with the defense and intelligence sectors.  We understand that key figures in the regional and functional bureaus have engaged in intense diplomacy around Section 231 in recent months, but it is less clear how the most senior levels of the department, much less the broader administration, have engaged in these efforts.  How often have you raised this provision of the law with your counterparts in bilateral meetings and other diplomatic interactions over the past six months? How often and in what settings have senior officials at the State Department raised these issues, including Deputy Secretary John Sullivan and Under Secretary Tom Shannon? 

Thank you for your attention to these critical issues.  We look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons on threat to Mueller investigation: “The time to buy fire insurance is not when your house is on fire, but we are almost there.”

Sen. Coons: Trump is “barely able to contain himself from raging against the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, firing the former FBI Director, pushing out the Deputy FBI Director, making his own White House counsel throw himself bodily before his attempts to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller”

Sen. Coons: “If we mean what we say we mean, which is that this is a nation not of men, but of laws, where no one is above the law, no mayor, governor, senator, and no president, then we have to step forward and take action to rein this behavior in and put it back within traditional norms.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined MSNBC’s Morning Joe to discuss the Mueller investigation and the memo released by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes.

“We in the Senate must act to pass a reasonable, responsible, modest, remedial measure that would provide some relief if the President inappropriately acts to fire the special counsel and I have a bipartisan bill that could accomplish that goal. The time to buy fire insurance is not when your house is on fire, but we are almost there,” said Senator Coons.  “Every lawyer, every legislator, every citizen should be hearing this as the moment of great importance in our republic that it is. We have a President and chief of staff who are acting completely outside the norms of what protects our republic and the rule of law. If we mean what we say we mean, which is that this is a nation not of men, but of laws, where no one is above the law, no mayor, governor, senator, and no president, then we have to step forward and take action to rein this behavior in and put it back within traditional norms. This is unprecedented and it’s incredibly dangerous for our system.”

Full audio and video available here. 

Excerpts from the interview:

Sen. Coons on the vote to release the memo: I think this is a stunning development, but as your panel has ably laid out, it fits in with a broader pattern. The President’s partisans in Congress, Republicans in the House like the supposedly-recused Devin Nunes are continuing to act in ways to undermine the credibility of the FBI, the Department of Justice with the ultimate aim of undermining the independence of the investigation being led by Robert Mueller… Let’s remember the larger goal. As your panelist just said, Robert Mueller’s investigation is important to our nation and our rule of law. It may ultimately fully clear President Trump, but he’s barely able to contain himself from raging against the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, firing the former FBI director, pushing out the deputy FBI director, making his own White House counsel throw himself bodily before his attempts to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. We in the Senate must act to pass a reasonable, responsible, modest, remedial measure that would provide some relief if the President inappropriately acts to fire the special counsel and I have a bipartisan bill that could accomplish that goal. The time to buy fire insurance is not when your house is on fire, but we are almost there. 

More on the memo and McCabe: Yes, we need to do our job of oversight and to make it clear that these important firewalls, these barriers between the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Justice and the FBI are respected and observed. All these recent reports suggesting the chief of staff, the President himself have been crossing critical boundaries, have to be investigated, overseen and reinforced by bipartisan action by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the pushing out of the deputy director is only the most recent part of a trend over many months. 

More on President Trump: You’re absolutely right, every lawyer, every legislator, every citizen should be hearing this as the moment of great importance in our republic that it is. We have a President and chief of staff who are acting completely outside the norms of what protects our republic and the rule of law. If we mean what we say we mean, which is that this is a nation not of men, but of laws, where no one is above the law, no mayor, governor, senator, and no president, then we have to step forward and take action to rein this behavior in and put it back within traditional norms. This is unprecedented and it’s incredibly dangerous for our system. 

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons: Report that Trump tried to fire Mueller “reinforces the urgency of our passing legislation in the Senate that would protect the special counsel from an unwarranted or abrupt firing”

Sen. Coons on Nunes memo: “I’m concerned about a steady drumbeat of efforts by Republicans particularly in the House to undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement, the FBI, and in particular Special Counsel Robert Mueller.” 

Sen. Coons: “the Democratic Party views immigration as a strength of our country, not as a challenge to be dealt with or minimized” 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined CNN’s New Day to discuss the latest developments in the Russia investigation and the upcoming sanctions deadline.

“I think there is a shared compassion by the American people for the Dreamers who were brought here through no fault of their own by their parents. But, our broader view as a Democratic Party is, it’s part of the strength of America,” said Senator Coons. “It brings the energy and the talent and the skills of people from around the world from different cultures to help strengthen America going forward. There are clearly folks on the other side of this debate from us who have an exact opposite view. And I think this should be looked at not as a zero-sum game where we make concessions to our core values but I think where we should be proceeding is to start with the smallest narrowest possible deal on border security and Dreamers and see if we can build out from there in a way that doesn’t compromise our core values as Democrats. That may be very difficult to do, but we will get to it this week.”

“Salacious and powerful and distracting and intentionally so. But, I’m concerned about a steady drumbeat of efforts by Republicans particularly in the House to undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement, the FBI, and in particular Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” said Senator Coons. “The bombshell revelation by the New York Times on Thursday night that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller last June reinforces the urgency of our passing legislation in the Senate that would protect the special counsel from an unwarranted or abrupt firing.” 

Full video and audio available here.

Excerpts from the interview:

Sen. Coons on Russia sanctions: It is really striking that on an action that was taken so broadly by the Senate like that 98-2 vote last summer, that the President, the White House, the administration hasn’t taken up the new sanction authorities and used them aggressively. It raises the question what possible reason the administration has for not imposing real costs on the Russians for their interference in our last election. 

More on sanctions: So far, they have used sanctioning authorities against other countries that were also part of that same bill, against North Korea, against Iran. Although they were slow to act in both of those cases. There hasn’t been in my mind any satisfactory explanation. It continues to be puzzling. All the way back to the campaign, candidate Trump made repeated unprecedented statements that were positive, glowing about Vladimir Putin, Russia and were negative or even attacking our Western European allies. As President Trump, he has continued the puzzling practice of not taking decisive action against Russia. So, this would be an important moment for the national security leadership and the Trump administration to press the President to take stronger action against Russia. 

Sen. Coons on Nunes memo: I don’t know anything about the contents, I haven’t seen it. It has been shared apparently with members of the House beyond the House Intelligence Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee members I believe they still haven’t seen it. And President Trump’s own Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice, has been strenuously objecting to a public release of it. I trust Congressman Adam Schiff, the Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence, who says it is a thinly veiled attack piece designed to undermine the credibility of the FBI and the investigation of Robert Mueller. And I think before releasing something like this, it should be carefully and thoroughly reviewed and the DOJ given an opportunity to respond in a classified setting. 

More on the memo: Salacious and powerful and distracting and intentionally so. But, I’m concerned about a steady drumbeat of efforts by Republicans particularly in the House to undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement, the FBI, and in particular Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The bombshell revelation by the New York Times on Thursday night that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller last June reinforces the urgency of our passing legislation in the Senate that would protect the special counsel from an unwarranted or abrupt firing. I think the consequences of that happening would be significant.  

More on Mueller: Because, we see now a President who has no clear sense of his boundaries and of the law. On occasion, he consults his lawyers and follows their advice, and the outcome has been positive. On occasion, he doesn’t consult his lawyers, he has done things that have really threatened the rule of law. From firing Comey to a number of other abrupt actions he’s taken. Let me just get to the point. This is a small legislative matter that would take current regulations and make them law that say that if the special counsel were abruptly removed without cause, counsel could find his way to be reinstated through a three-judge panel. When I ask my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, would it be a big deal if the President abruptly fired Robert Mueller? They all say absolutely. It would be a constitutional crisis. When I say to them what would you do, they don’t have a clear answer. We don’t know what the next steps would be as a body. If we could put a speed bump in place that would just prevent the President from taking a rash and unwarranted act, it would strengthen our constitutional order and protect our country from an unnecessary moment should the President go off the rails on this issue again. 

Sen. Coons on immigration: There are vigorous debates in the Democratic caucus on exactly those grounds. There is very strong opposition to ending the diversity lottery. Because, the Democratic Party views immigration as a strength of our country, not as a challenge to be dealt with or minimized. We also view immigration to reunify families as one of our great positives not as a challenge or weakness. We would like to find an appropriate balance between skill-based or merit-based immigration and family-based immigration. Some of the proposals put out by the White House are really extreme in terms of attacking both family-based migration and diversity as one of the goals of migration. There is an overall difference in our views. I think there is a shared compassion by the American people for the Dreamers who were brought here through no fault of their own by their parents. But, our broader view as a Democratic Party is, it’s part of the strength of America. It brings the energy and the talent and the skills of people from around the world from different cultures to help strengthen America going forward. There are clearly folks on the other side of this debate from us who have an exact opposite view. And I think this should be looked at not as a zero-sum game where we make concessions to our core values but I think where we should be proceeding is to start with the smallest narrowest possible deal on border security and Dreamers and see if we can build out from there in a way that doesn’t compromise our core values as Democrats. That may be very difficult to do, but we will get to it this week.  

###

Sen. Coons’ statement on reports that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement in response to reports that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller last June. Last August, Senators Coons and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) introduced the Special Counsel Integrity Act, bipartisan legislation that would support the integrity of independent investigations by allowing judicial review if a special counsel is removed.

“Reports that President Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller are profoundly disturbing. Removing the Special Counsel without good cause is as unacceptable today as it was when President Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor in 1973,” said Senator Coons.  “It is more important than ever for Congress to act to protect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the Special Counsel investigation. For several months, I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that. These reports make clear that we need to act.”

###

Sen. Coons’ op-ed in The News Journal: ‘Bankruptcy legislation could devastate Delaware’

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) authored an op-ed in The News Journal on a recently introduced Senate bill that could deny many American businesses the ability to access bankruptcy courts in Wilmington, Delaware. 

The News Journal: Bankruptcy legislation could devastate Delaware

By Chris Coons

If you find yourself at the intersection of Eighth and Market Streets in downtown Wilmington during the week, you’ll be surrounded by a flurry of people and activity. If you head a block or two up the street for lunch, chances are that you’ll have to wait if you’re not there early. 

All around that part of town, businesses are busy, and lines extend out the door with lawyers and paralegals, secretaries and couriers — people from all walks of life. 

It’s not a coincidence that the area around 8th and Market is one of the busiest in our city. It’s because it’s home to Delaware’s federal bankruptcy court, one of the key pillars of our local economy and a big reason for all of the other successful businesses nearby.

Unfortunately, two of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate are now aiming to take that economic pillar away from us, and we’re going to have to fight back. 

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently introduced a bill that would deny most American businesses the ability to work with Wilmington’s nationally known bankruptcy courts and skilled bankruptcy lawyers. That’s unfair to American businesses in all 50 states, and it would deal a significant blow to our local economy because our courts are a key reason that corporations want to do business in Wilmington.

Let’s step back and talk about what the bankruptcy court does and why it’s so important to Delaware.

The full column can be found here. 

###

Sen. Coons votes to confirm Alex Azar’s nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) issued the following statement announcing his support of President Trump’s nomination of Alex Azar to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“After careful consideration, I’ve decided to support President Trump’s nomination of Alex Azar to serve as our next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I have known Mr. Azar for several decades and have always been impressed with his intellect and work ethic. Mr. Azar also brings a wealth of experience to this role, having served in a number of different senior roles at HHS and in the private sector.

“I personally met with Mr. Azar last month and pressed him on a number of key issues that he will impact as Secretary, including the Affordable Care Act, drug pricing, and continued progress on health care system delivery reform.  There is plenty that we disagree on, but I was encouraged by his answers during our conversation and I believe he is committed to representing the interests of Delawareans and Americans everywhere.  I disagree with most of the Trump Administration’s health policies, but HHS needs a competent leader.  Mr. Azar is prepared to be that.”

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons concerned about upholding the blue slip tradition in Judiciary Committee nominations hearing

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned Michael Brennan, President Trump’s nominee to be the U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

“I have expressed my concern repeatedly with the importance of upholding the blue slip as a way that we insist on the White House consulting with all senators and having a process that, regardless of partisanship, ensures that all senators’ views are taken into account and I’m concerned we are again moving ahead with a hearing on a nominee that does not have returned blue slips from both home state senators. I think it is disheartening in this case in particular to proceed, Mr. Brennan, on your nomination even though you’re missing a blue slip, because this vacancy only exists because the blue slip was fully honored under the previous administration and I’ll address that a little more further.” 

Full audio and video available here.

Sen. Coons’ questioning below:

Sen. Coons: Thank you, Mr. Brennan, for a chance to question you and for your service and congratulations on your nomination. I have expressed my concern repeatedly with the importance of upholding the blue slip as a way that we insist on the White House consulting with all senators and having a process that regardless of partisanship, ensures that all senators’ views are taken into account and I’m concerned we are again moving ahead with a hearing on a nominee that does not have returned blue slips from both home state senators. I think it is disheartening in this case in particular to proceed, Mr. Brennan, on your nomination even though you’re missing a blue slip because this vacancy only exists because the blue slip was fully honored under the previous administration and I’ll address that a little more further. Mr. Brennan, I might ask you more directly, as a trial court judge, you presided over a case in which four young African American men were charged with vandalism. They were charged with letting the air out of the tires rented by the Republican Party. The DA reached a plea agreement with the defendants who pled to a misdemeanor in return for probation. You rejected the plea agreement and imposed jail sentences ranging from 4-6 months. While you were a judge, did you frequently reject plea agreements and why did you reject the plea agreement in this particular case?

Mr. Brennan: Thank you for the opportunity to address that case. That was a case about voter suppression, it wasn’t letting air out of the tires but rather slashing the tires. It was a two-week trial that I presided over with very detailed evidence. The FBI was involved. They had been tracking the defendants using the cell phone towers. It was a very hard-fought case by some excellent lawyers. Particularly with regard to that case, I think it’s important to note that among the defendants, there were varying levels of culpability, which is why there were different sentences.  That particular case was one in which none of those defendants appealed. They all had that opportunity if they felt there was an issue with regard to the sentencing or the way the case was handled, to do so. None of them appealed. Because I did my very best to address those various concerns under State v. Gallion that I’ve been talking about. The need to protect the community, those particular offenders, and then this offense. 

Sen. Coons: And, did you feel that because one conclusion that you may have reached was that their goal was not petty crime or vandalism, but was voter suppression, that it was deserving of a higher level of sentencing?

Mr. Brennan: Yes, and the level of facts meant for example the slashing of the tires was on the perimeter of the vans, not on the interior of the vans, which meant that those vans could then not be used the next day. 

Sen. Coons: Would it strike you as unusual that we had a nominee for a federal bench who was whether unresolved accusations of direct involvement of voter suppression? 

Mr. Brennan: I’m sorry I’m not tracking the question. 

Sen. Coons: Okay. I have a limited amount of time, I’ll move on. You helped rewrite Wisconsin’s criminal sentencing laws part of the Criminal Penalties Committee, and as you’ve explained in some other contexts, parole was abolished as a result and the act increased penalty ranges roughly 50% for felonies. Given your experience as a judge and your work on the sentencing committee, did you consider the impact on minority communities of increasing penalty ranges so significantly in this action? 

Mr. Brennan: I was a staff council of that committee. That committee did consider that. There were 18 members, it was bipartisan, it included judges, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, corrections officials, academics. And, ultimately, the product that came out of that committee absolutely did consider that. I think the vote was 16 in favor, 1 concurrence and 1 dissent that then was transitioned and became legislation. It was an important aspect of the classification process to make sure that certain crimes didn’t go places they shouldn’t. Also, I would indicate we for example under sentencing guidelines considered whether or not there should be mandatory minimum sentences. And, the criminal penalty study committee rejected that, because we thought from informationally accurate, I should say the committee thought, I was the staff attorney for it, the committee thought that for informationally accurate sentences, it was important that the judge had maximum discretion. That would mean not catching people on a mandatory minimum that shouldn’t be caught. 

Sen. Coons: Thank you. Just one last question, I’ll go back to the blue slip issue. In 2011, President Obama nominated Victoria Nourse to the sit for which you’re currently nominated. Senator Johnson opposed that nomination on the grounds the Obama administration hadn’t consulted with him before nominating Nourse, and ultimately Senator Johnson did not return his blue slip, our practice as a committee to prevent the nomination of folks we don’t think appropriately reflect our home states. And, in defense of Senator Johnson’s decision, you personally wrote that he should have had a voice in the nominating process given that neutrality comes from applying the same procedures to all and excluding him from the process was a, and I quote, “purely partisan move.” Ms. Nourse subsequently withdrew her nomination. Given that Senator Baldwin has not returned her blue slip and was not consulted in this process, have you considered withdrawing yours?

Mr. Brennan: No, senator, the distinction that I think that was being made was Victoria Nourse was re-nominated after a new year and Senator Johnson had just come into office, I think he’d only been in office a couple of days and the blue slip came to him. He had not been part of that selection process. Senator Baldwin and Senator Johnson of course both had their nominees on the Wisconsin Federal Nominating Commission. I was proud to interview with them. I was proud to receive bipartisan support from them. My involvement here as the nominee was to fill out the application, to interview with commission, interview with the White House, and therefore the distinction I would make, I suppose, is based upon that history. 

Senators introduce “most significant change in music licensing laws in decades” to ensure songwriters are paid fair value for their songs

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of eight senators today introduced legislation they said would be the “most significant change in music licensing laws in decades” to ensure songwriters are paid fair value for their songs. The Music Modernization Act would set up a new simplified licensing entity to make it easier for digital music companies to obtain a license and play songs. The entity will also ensure songwriters are paid the royalties they are owed. The bill would also change the law to help songwriters be paid a fair market value for their songs.

The senators said the internet has transformed the music industry, and the Music Modernization Act updates outdated music licensing laws to make it easier for songwriters to be paid when their music is played online by a digital steaming service, or purchased online. According to Standard and Poor’s, there were 86 million paying subscribers to digital streaming services, who streamed music 252 billion times in 2016. Revenues generated from online music generated half the music industry’s revenues in 2016. As digital music streaming increases, the number of individual song downloads fell 24 percent between 2015 and 2016 and compact disc sales fell below 100 million units sold – which means less royalties paid to songwriters. 

The senators—U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), and Doug Jones (D-Ala.)—said the legislation represents a remarkable consensus among songwriters, music publishers and digital services. 

“Songwriters will finally get a market-based mechanical rate standard, which should result in more equitable royalties from interactive streaming companies,” said Steve Bogard, president of the Nashville Songwriters Association International. “Until now, we have been tied to outdated rate standards Congress first adopted for player piano rolls back in 1909.  In addition, American songwriters will, for the first time, by law, receive at least half of all unclaimed digital mechanical royalties.  I want to extend my deepest thanks to all of our introducing Senate sponsors.  The Music Modernization Act represents the most significant copyright reform in a generation.” 

“I’m pleased to join my colleagues in sponsoring this crucially important legislation,” Hatch said. “Our music licensing laws are convoluted, out-of-date, and don’t reward songwriters fairly for their work. They’ve also failed to keep up with recent, rapid changes in how Americans purchase and listen to music. The Music Modernization Act will streamline and update our licensing laws to ensure that streaming services and other digital music providers are able to obtain the licenses they need while simultaneously making sure that songwriters are paid a fair market value for their work. This is a consensus piece of legislation that brings together all sides of the music industry, and I intend to work my hardest to see it enacted in the near future.”

“Rhode Island is home to talented musicians and a vibrant music scene.  As more of us stream our music online, this bill will help make sure the songwriters who compose the music we love are paid fair value for their work.  It will also help their music find a broader audience by streamlining the burdensome licensing process.  Updating our licensing and royalties laws is a win for creators, publishers, and fans of great music,” said Whitehouse.

“This legislation addresses two of the greatest challenges facing songwriters: One is that the arrival of the Internet has meant that many songwriters aren’t paid royalties when their songs are played, and two, when they are paid, they aren’t paid a fair market value for their songs,” Alexander said. “It is also the first major bill that has the support of music creators, publishers and digital music companies. With such broad support, I’m hopeful we will be able to pass the legislation this spring.”

“It’s no secret that music is enjoyed much differently today than when I was growing up. Records and record players now serve as decoration as opposed to the way to listen to your favorite Muddy Waters album in the comfort of your own home. But music licensing laws have not kept up in the age of streaming and downloading, and this has been a problem for music creators and consumers alike,” said Durbin. “The Music Modernization Act will reform outdated music licensing copyright laws that apply to internet music services, which will make the system simpler for them, provide fairer compensation for the song creators, and help consumers access their favorite songs for years to come.”

“Our state is blessed with a vibrant music industry composed of talented songwriters, skilled musicians, and countless small and large businesses,” said Corker. “However, while the industry has transformed with advances in technology and new platforms providing access to music, we have yet to modernize the way music creators are compensated for their work. This legislation will help improve the music marketplace so that it works not only for consumers but also the countless people who bring to life the music we enjoy each day.”

“The Music Modernization Act is an important bipartisan bill that will streamline music licensing for the digital age,” Coons said. “It is a much-needed update to the copyright laws that will help ensure songwriters are paid consistently when their songs are played online while giving digital music platforms an easier way to know that they have permission to play all the songs in their repertoire.  This benefits everyone, including the public, as modernized copyright laws will provide the right incentives for artists to create new music today and for generations to come.”

“The music industry in Georgia is legendary, and among songwriters, musicians, producers and those with other careers in the music industry, our talent pool seems to be growing every day,” said Isakson. “The Music Modernization Act is broadly supported by performers as well as producers and distributors, and it would make a big difference in helping ensure that musicians and songwriters receive fair compensation for their work and that outdated music licensing laws are updated for modern technologies.” 

“Alabama has a long and proud history of producing talented musicians – from Wilson Pickett to Jason Isbell,” said Jones. “These artists bring so much value to our daily lives. In order for them to continue creating the music we listen to every day, we need to make sure they are adequately paid for their work. Today’s laws are outdated and fail to protect musicians in the digital age. I’m proud to co-sponsor commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will reward the artists who have brought all us so much joy.” 

U.S. Representatives Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Hakeem Jefferies (D-N.Y.) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives on December 21, 2017. 

The Music Modernization Act:

• Adopts a simple licensing system for digital music services making it easier for companies to obtain a license to play a song and reducing the likelihood of litigation. 
• Ensures songwriters will be paid the fair market value for their songs by:

o   Directing the Copyright Royalty Board to set compensation according to the fair market value when songs are sold, such as through music downloads, replacing the current below-market standard.

o   Removing a provision of law that narrows the scope of evidence the federal rate court may examine when asked to set songwriter compensation for when their song is played, such as in a restaurant or at a concert.  

The legislation is supported by the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), the Digital Media Association (DiMA), the American Society for Composers, Authors and Publishers, (ASCAP) the Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) and the Songwriters of North America (SONA). Additional supporters include the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Recording Academy and the American Federation of Musicians.

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons on this weekend’s bipartisan negotiations: “My growing confidence in the Republicans in that group led me to believe we really have a chance at fixing this problem.”

WASHINGTON – This morning, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) joined MSNBC’s Morning Joe to discuss his vote to end the government shutdown.

“I have growing confidence in the group of Republican senators that were meeting with a group of Democrats for several days, we spent hours, I think a total of eight hours together fairly intensively over three days. I believe they are committed, several of them intensely committed to moving this issue forward in a positive way, and to working together to get 60 votes. Leader McConnell has given us time on the floor and made a commitment in such a public way. I find it hard to believe he would walk that back,” said Senator Coons.

Full audio and video available here.

Excerpts from the interview below:

Sen. Coons on 2020 Democrats: Well I work in Washington, I work in the United States Senate. And the old joke is that every senator gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror and says good morning, Mr. President, and I serve with dozens of people who think that they, too, could be President someday. Given the dysfunction and at times even the chaos that President Trump has caused in our Capitol this past year, it’s easier than ever to understand why many of my colleagues think they could do a better job. In the interview with Kasie, what I was trying to focus on was being positive about the bipartisan working group that spent all weekend working together to come to a stronger agreement about moving forward on DACA and border security and how my growing confidence in the Republicans in that group led me to believe we really have a chance at fixing this problem. And I do think the average American, if we had a government shutdown that had lasted as long as it did in 2013, would have just been disgusted with all of us, and when we do things in Washington collectively that lead the average American to change the channel and say a pox on all your houses, that’s not good for the country, it’s not good for our party, and I think it just drives us farther apart. So, I was trying to be positive about the prospects now for a real vote on the floor of the Senate on immigration, for the first time in five years. 

Sen. Coons on whether this was a victory: I do think getting CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, re-authorized and funded for six years, something that’s been lapsed for months now, was a big step forward. But frankly, I think everybody in our caucus knows that there remain several other important things not addressed. Community health centers. Disaster relief. Remember the hurricane damage that Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands and Florida and Texas are suffering through. Funding for the opioid crisis and addressing DACA and border security. My hope is with the new opening in the next 17 days, we will negotiate a solution to all of these. 

More on whether this was a victory: And, we gained a commitment by Majority Leader McConnell on the floor, with specificity, that by February 8th there will be a vote on the floor of the Senate on DACA and border security, and that that debate will begin with a neutral base bill. There was a lot of concern given his initial wording where he said it is my intention to move to immigration. That what we would have gotten on February 8th is he put a bill by Cotton and Perdue on the floor, we would have one up or down vote on the floor and that’s it, he would have kept his commitment, and we would have moved on. The actual wording that he said on the floor yesterday mattered to the bipartisan group that was trying to move us forward to a real debate that could resolve our unaddressed issues here. The larger issue for all of us is we still don’t have an agreement on increasing spending for our defense and domestic needs, we’re still under the budget agreement caps. We still don’t have a resolution to appropriations. That’s one of the most urgent things to work in the next two weeks. 

Sen. Coons on DACA: I understand the skepticism that many in my caucus, and in the country, feel because there have been some instances recently where it was reported that promises were made to specific senators and they were not kept. I have growing confidence in the group of Republican senators that were meeting with a group of Democrats for several days, we spent hours, I think a total of eight hours together fairly intensively over three days. I believe they are committed, several of them intensely committed to moving this issue forward in a positive way, and to working together to get 60 votes. Leader McConnell has given us time on the floor and made a commitment in such a public way. I find it hard to believe he would walk that back. Because he’s making that commitment to key members of his own caucus. Both privately and publicly. And, at the end of the day, I was convinced we were not going to get more from him than that commitment. It was time to move forward. 

Sen. Coons on activists upset with Democrats: I certainly hope not, although when I look back at the division in the Republican Party in 2010, I’m grateful because it was a Tea Party primary here in Delaware that made it possible for me to be in the United States Senate. So, I’ll say to Democrats, if you want to lose a guaranteed safe seat, have the kind of senseless, divisive primaries that happened in Delaware and prevented beloved former Congressman and Governor Mike Castle from being the Republican nominee in 2010. I’ll also say Amy Klobuchar is firmly committed to making progress and making a difference. If that’s not advancing Progressive values, I don’t know what is. She pitched in and worked tirelessly, was one of the real leaders of this group, and I think is wholeheartedly behind solving these problems. That’s the kind of leader I think folks are looking for and I don’t think it’s a betrayal of Progressive values deserving of a primary to work tirelessly to advance one of the more divisive issues in our country which is addressing immigration. 

###