[VIDEO] Senator Coons delivers opening remarks at Senate Judiciary Committee IP hearing

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered opening remarks at a hearing entitled “Intellectual Property—Driver of Innovation: Making Our Lives Healthier, Safer, and More Productive” in honor of World Intellectual Property Day (Wednesday, April 26).

Audio and video are available here.

Senator Coons’ opening remarks are below:

I’d like to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing on the important issue of intellectual property and how it is a driver of innovation that helps make all of our lives healthier and safer and more productive. 

This is a great way to honor World Intellectual Property Day. I also want to thank Chairman Grassley for serving as the lead co-chair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, which works to highlight the real and growing problem of counterfeit goods and their impact on the health and safety of Americans. Now that we’ve officially re-launched the Caucus for this Congress, I look forward to having more events together to draw attention to the real problems caused by counterfeiting. 

We are here today to celebrate the role that intellectual property plays in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in our country, a topic that’s quite important to me. I’ve seen firsthand, growing up in Delaware, the value of intellectual property for individuals and businesses. I grew up in a neighborhood where most of the heads of household were DuPont engineers and many were patent holders, and that was sort of the mark of who was most respected in my community. I know that may be a little unusual in American neighborhoods, but I thought it was typical. And I went on from there to work for an innovative materials science company that relied on the full spectrum of IP protections—from trade secrets, to copyrights, to trademarks, to patents—to protect the value of its inventions and its innovation. 

I look forward to hearing from this terrific panel of witnesses about how IP has helped our country achieve its goals and how you are contributing to a strong and robust IP system. I thank you for your time and testimony today. 

I’ll take a step back, first, and look at how IP affects our country. You heard from the Chairman a number of compelling statistics. I’ll mention that the Department of Commerce estimates that IP-intensive industries contributed to about $6.6 trillion in value added to our GDP and that we have a trade surplus in IP of about $85 billion due to the licensing of IP rights. 

The grant of a patent increases the likelihood of a startup company getting venture capital by more than 50 percent, and over five years, having an issued patent increases startup employment growth by a third and sales growth by 50 percent. Having a patent that you can defend is absolutely essential to startup businesses in America.

At the beginning of this Congress, we also, though, have to be mindful of some worrying signs that the U.S. is losing the competitive edge that it has long enjoyed by having a very strong IP system. The most recent Global Intellectual Property Index released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked the United States as tenth in the world for the strength of its patent system. In every previous year we were ranked first. 

Census data released late last year found that back in 2014, the creation of new startups was at or near a forty year low, and the share of venture capital around the world dedicated to the U.S. fell to 50 percent, down from 80 percent two decades before. Just in the last few years, two of our main global competitors, China and India, have doubled their shares of the global VC market.

These statistics in total paint a worrisome picture of the state of our legal framework that supports innovation—that intersection between patents and venture capital that is so critical to launching and growing new businesses. 

There are other concerns I’ve heard repeatedly from industry and from the IP community that a number of recent changes have weakened our IP system. Supreme Court decisions and federal rules changes have made it harder to enforce patents and weakened available remedies. Cases have called into question whether patents should issue at all in medical diagnostics and computer software, some of the most competitive areas of our economy. There’s real uncertainty created by post-grant administration proceedings at the USPTO that can undermine confidence, particularly in technology-intensive startups. 

In sum, these and other legal developments trouble me because I think a strong IP system, as the Chairman also said, is one of our country’s greatest inheritances. Article 1, Sec. 8 of our Constitution specifically sets forth a clause about the importance of patent rights and of strengthening intellectual property.  Our Founding Fathers signaled their recognition of the value of incentivizing invention and innovation by the inclusion of this clause and the original Patent Act of 1790. They laid groundwork for a strong IP system in part because many of them were themselves inventors. We need to take care that we don’t lose that inheritance. 

The challenges we face today, as a nation, need the attention our greatest innovative minds.  For their innovative solutions to these challenges to become real-world products and services, we need a strong IP system. Although I have concerns about the strength of our IP system, I’m heartened by the knowledge that fostering innovation and entrepreneurship remains a strong bipartisan issue. We can work together in a way that restores our unquestioned leadership in world IP. 

Chairman Grassley’s work on the Congressional Trademark Caucus is but one of many examples of bipartisanship on this issue, and another one on this Committee is the leadership of Senator Hatch, with whom I worked to co-sponsor the Defense Trade Secrets Act, and which was signed into law last year. 

As we look to maintain America’s competitive edge, it’s important that we have hearings like this one, celebrations of World IP Day, to remind us that protecting America’s innovations and invention is one of the most important things we can be doing. 

It will allow us to reclaim our role as the gold standard in intellectual property globally, and it will serve to make our lives healthier, happier, and more productive.

###

Senate, House Co-Chairs Relaunch Congressional Trademark Caucus

WASHINGTON – In an effort to support the vital role trademarks play in the U.S. economy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Senator Chris Coons, Congressman John Ratcliffe and Congressman Ted Deutch have relaunched the Congressional Trademark Caucus.

“Purchasing fake and potentially unsafe products can be dangerous to consumers and harmful to entrepreneurs.  The Congressional Trademark Caucus can help educate members of Congress, as well our constituents, about the valuable role trademarks play in the global marketplace.  The Caucus will focus on a number of initiatives that will increase awareness and foster a productive public dialogue about the importance of trademarks and the risks associated with counterfeit goods,” Grassley said.

“Not only are trademarks critical for companies’ ability to grow and create jobs, but they also play an important role in communicating the authenticity and integrity of products and services to customers. Counterfeit products with fake trademarks can be unsafe versions of the real thing whose sales may fund criminal networks.  The Congressional Trademark Caucus will work hard in both the House and the Senate to bring attention to the need to protect trademarks and guard against the harms caused by intellectual property theft,” Coons said.

“I look forward to working with my co-chairs on the Congressional Trademark Caucus to shed light on the important role trademarks play in protecting the health and safety of American families. As a former U.S. Attorney and terrorism prosecutor, I’m also interested in raising awareness in Congress about links between counterfeits and organized crime and terrorist organizations,” Ratcliffe said.

“Trademarks are the lifeblood of businesses, and I am glad to serve as co-chair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus to educate and protect them. Counterfeit products can be dangerous to consumers and destructive to small and growing businesses trying to expand globally,” said Deutch.

The caucus will work to support congressional committees with jurisdiction over trademarks and Intellectual property, with special attention to consumer issues. The mission of the caucus is to help increase awareness among Congress, the media and the public about trademarks’ importance to global commerce, foster public policy dialogues among state and federal governments and brand owners on how best to reduce counterfeit goods in the marketplace and highlight trademark protection in discussions between the U.S. and other nations and world governing bodies.

Sen. Coons announces support for President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary

WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), co-founder of the Senate Chicken Caucus, issued the following statement announcing his support for former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Agriculture:

“Governor Perdue knows poultry, which is so important to Delmarva. We had a positive meeting to discuss his goals, and I’m confident I’ll be able to work constructively with Gov. Perdue on important Delaware priorities such as poultry production, avian health, agricultural trade, USDA conservation programs, and agriculture research and extension. While I will seek to work together, I will challenge Gov. Perdue to push back against some of the biggest proposed budget cuts to vital federal programs that support Delaware agriculture. I have heard from many farmers in Delaware who support Governor Perdue, and I look forward to supporting his confirmation.”

ICYMI: Sen. Coons in South Sudan

WILMINGTON, Del. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy, was featured in a VOA article about his recent trip to South Sudan with Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Read the full article below:

VOA: US Senator Wants Aid Maintained to South Sudan

April 17, 2017

Waakhe Simon Wudu

A top U.S. politician visiting South Sudan says he will urge colleagues to maintain assistance to the country despite severe cuts in foreign aid proposed by the Trump administration. 

Senator Christopher Coons (D-Delaware), who is in rebel-controlled Ganyiel of former Unity State this week, said he was shocked to learn that the town’s entire population depends on humanitarian agencies for food. 

The senator noted there are no roads going into and out of Ganyiel, so all equipment and relief aid must be delivered by air, which is extremely expensive. 

“We will have to make stronger arguments for why particular U.N. missions and particular countries should remain a priority,” Coons told VOA’s South Sudan in Focus on Monday. 

“South Sudan currently has the largest and most difficult refugee problem in the entire continent of 54 countries. I think it should remain a priority but there will be some difficult negotiations between Congress and the Trump administration,” said Coons. 

Since the outbreak of South Sudan’s conflict in late 2013, the United States has contributed at least one billion dollars toward humanitarian aid in the African country. The budget proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump would cut total U.S. aid abroad by more than 30 percent. 

This marks the first visit to South Sudan for Coons, the former chairman and member of the Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs. The U.S. lawmaker also visited a refugee camp in neighboring Uganda, which hosts hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese who fled the violence back home.

Coons said he came to Ganyiel to familiarize himself with U.S.-funded projects aimed at combating hunger and health problems in the area. U.N. agencies declared two counties of former Unity State famine-stricken in February.

Coons also visited Panyijar County, which hosts tens of thousands of internally displaced persons who fled to the area from Mayendit and Leer, the two former Unity State counties hit by famine.

Panyijar County Commissioner John Tap asked Senator Coons to deliver to a message to the Trump administration.

“The Obama administration was not serious about resolving the South Sudan conflict,” said Tap. He said even if the U.S. government continues to pour millions of dollars into South Sudan for humanitarian aid, it will do nothing if there is no peace. He called the money “useless.”

Coons urged South Sudanese leaders to find workable solutions to the conflict.

“This is not the time to assume that the U.S. will always be present and will always provide support. I think that makes it an urgent time for the leaders of South Sudan to find a peaceful resolution to the widening violence and the conflict,” he said. 

###

Sen. Coons opens service academy nomination process

ICYMI: Associated Press: Corker, Coons Say Food Aid Constraints Delay Help Amid Famine

Apr 15, 9:49 AM EDT

BY JUSTIN LYNCH

BIDI BIDI CAMP, Uganda (AP) — As President Donald Trump seeks to cut foreign aid under the slogan of “America First,” two U.S. senators are proposing making American food assistance more efficient after meeting with victims of South Sudan’s famine and civil war.

Following a visit to the world’s largest refugee settlement in northern Uganda with the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told The Associated Press on Saturday that the U.S. “can deliver more food aid at less cost” through foreign food aid reform.

The United States spent roughly $2.8 billion in foreign food aid last year and is the world’s largest provider of humanitarian assistance. But current regulations require most food aid to be grown in the U.S. and shipped under an American flag.

“It’s taken in some cases six months for those products to actually get here,” Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee told the AP. “We have people coming over the border (from South Sudan). They need food. We can actually buy the food cheaper, use our taxpayer dollars cheaper.”

The two senators on Friday toured a food distribution site at the refugee settlement, which holds more than 270,000 South Sudanese who recently fled the three-year civil war in the East African nation.

The U.N. says South Sudan is part of the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II, with roughly 20 million people there and in Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen facing possible famine. Two counties in South Sudan were declared famine areas in February.

The senators watched as South Sudanese divided sacks of corn and cereals during a food distribution. Behind them, snaking lines of refugees waited for their rations of food that last for 40 days.

The Bidi Bidi settlement is a sprawling complex of mud-brick houses that hold some of the world’s most desperate people. With little respite from the fierce sun, arguments broke out at the food distribution site.

“We don’t have enough food,” said Madra Dominic, one of the waiting refugees. “Right now they are reducing (food).” Uganda’s government has said it is near “breaking point” and that there could be serious food shortages if more outside aid doesn’t arrive.

In March, Trump proposed a budget that would cut 28 percent of funding for diplomacy and foreign aid, singling out the Food for Peace program that funds a majority of U.S. foreign food assistance.

The budget plan still requires approval by Congress.

Both Coons and Corker defended humanitarian aid, and argued that lifting restrictions on where foreign food aid is grown and how it is shipped would feed more people.

Corker blamed a “cartel in Washington” of maritime companies and “a small group of people in Washington” who cause less people to eat.

“Americans have real questions about whether their money is making an impact (abroad),” Coons told the AP.

Last year, Coons and Corker co-sponsored a law which allows flexibility in how a portion of foreign food aid is grown and delivered. About $900 million of food aid now can be grown near the site of a crisis overseas and shipped under any flag.

Roughly $1.2 billion of the U.S. food assistance still carries the restrictions of being grown in the U.S. and being shipped under a U.S. flag. The U.S. Agency for International Development has estimated that the Coons-Corker plan to lift those restrictions would reach 2 to 4 million more people with equivalent funding.

At the same time, a March study by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found “certain deficiencies in USAID’s oversight” of the portion of food aid that has more flexibility.

On Wednesday, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway of Texas, a Republican, said in a statement that “demands for even more flexibility are premature” when it comes to foreign food aid. Farm-state lawmakers and shipping companies have long opposed the additional flexibility.

Delivering any food aid inside South Sudan has been challenging, with South Sudanese officials repeatedly accused of restricting humanitarian access and harassing aid workers, while rebels in some cases have abducted aid workers. Some also are targeted in the fighting.

As Corker and Coons met with refugees and toured the food distribution site, the U.N.’s World Food Program announced that three of its contract workers had been killed on Monday in the town of Wau in South Sudan. Two were killed by machete wounds and the third was shot, WFP said.

© 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Corker, Coons Visit World’s Largest Refugee Camp to Get a Firsthand Look at Global Food Crisis In Uganda, Senators Stress Urgency of Humanitarian Response, Condemn Restrictions on Access to Aid

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Friday visited the Bidi Bidi refugee camp in Uganda, where more than 270,000 people reside after fleeing war-torn South Sudan. The senators witnessed firsthand one of the countries hardest hit by the current global food crisis in which 20 million people in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen are at risk of starvation. They sought to elevate international attention on the historic and desperate nature of the humanitarian situation while also making a plea for other donor countries to join the U.S. in meeting the unprecedented need. The senators also called out governments and non-state actors who are blocking delivery of aid and reiterated support for long-needed reforms of U.S. international food aid programs.

“Last week, we witnessed firsthand the immense suffering caused by the current global food crisis, a situation that is purely man-made, with corrupt governments and armed groups committing savage violence and pushing millions of people to the brink of starvation.” said Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The conflicts in East Africa and the massive refugee flows that have been created make getting life-sustaining food to those in need an urgent priority that only grows by the day. Senator Coons and I will continue to press for using existing U.S. food aid resources more efficiently to reach millions more people each year.”

“It is difficult not to be moved by what Senator Corker and I have witnessed this past week,” said Coons, member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “We saw men, women, and children forced to flee from famine and brutality in South Sudan to the world’s largest refugee camp in Uganda. The people we met face severe, life-threatening hunger, and their government is not helping. Senator Corker and I intend to do our part to shine a spotlight on these crises, to call for maintaining U.S. funding for humanitarian assistance, and to ensure U.S. foreign assistance is more effective and efficient through food aid reform. As a world leader responding to humanitarian emergencies, the U.S. government can and should make a significant positive impact.”

In March, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the unprecedented state of global humanitarian affairs with a focus on the expanding food crisis affecting in the Middle East and Africa and how the U.S. and the world should respond. In general, Corker and Coons would like to see reforms similar to those included in the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2015, which include:

• Cost-Effective Procurement: Current law requires 100 percent of food aid commodities be produced in the United States. Corker-Coons reforms would lift this requirement and allow both U.S. and locally or regionally procured (LRP) commodities, vouchers, and debit cards to be used—whichever is the most cost effective option, allowing the U.S. to feed more people, more quickly and at a lower cost.

• Cargo Flexibility: Current law requires 50 percent of donated food aid to be shipped on American-flagged vessels. According to USAID, Government Accountability Office (GAO), and a study by Cornell University, removing the cargo preference requirement will save an estimated $50 million per year and speed delivery to a larger population.

• Eliminate Monetization: Current law requires 15 percent of all U.S. donated food to be sold first by aid organizations, producing cash that then funds development projects. GAO has warned this process – known as “monetization” – is “inefficient and can cause adverse market impacts” in recipient countries. GAO also found monetization loses an average of 25 cents on every taxpayer dollar spent. According to USAID, eliminating monetization could feed an additional 800,000 people and free up an estimated $30 million per year.

Last year, the senators supported a first-time authorization for the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) that became law as part of The Global Food Security Act. USAID had increasingly relied on EFSP to avoid constraints that would prevent delivery of emergency food aid through the Food for Peace Program. EFSP can be a model for overall food aid reform, moving the U.S. toward a system that guarantees U.S. farmers’ involvement in the program while allowing for greater flexibility to reach people in need without wasting millions in unnecessary overhead.

ICYMI: Senator Coons authors op-ed in The Hill on economic adjustment programs

WILMINGTON, Del. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) authored an op-ed in The Hill on the importance of reviewing and updating current economic adjustment programs in order to empower communities, companies, and workers to succeed in a changing economic landscape.

Read the full op-ed below:

The Hill: Economic Adjustment Strategies for the 21^st Century

By U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.)

If there’s a lesson to be learned from the frustration and anger observed across the political spectrum, it’s that too many Americans have borne the brunt of rapid and dramatic economic disruption — changes stemming from technological progress, trade agreements, globalization, and shifts in government policy — without seeing any upside. Their real concerns make it critical that we offer new solutions to empower communities, companies, and workers to succeed in a changing economic landscape, with a special focus on these “economic adjustment” programs for Americans who are most affected by profound economic changes.

That’s why, last week, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and I sent a letter calling on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review current federal government economic adjustment programs and identify options for a more comprehensive policy response. As an independent, nonpartisan agency, GAO is responsible for investigating how Congress spends taxpayer dollars. We believe that a review by GAO of the current programs is a necessary first step to understanding the parameters of a more effective economic agenda.

To date, lawmakers of both parties have sought to address the impacts of economic challenges with discrete economic adjustment programs focused on the causes of the disruption. Here’s a quick overview of those programs.

To address and mitigate the impacts of trade-related actions, Congress created a program known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Workers run by the Department of Labor (DOL). For businesses affected by global trade, there is a separate program (TAA for Firms) operated by the Economic Development Administration (EDA). If the source of the economic pain is determined to be changes in defense spending (such as base closings or defunded weapons systems), the Defense Department’s Office of Economic Adjustment addresses impacts that result from these changes with what’s known as a Defense Industry Adjustment program.

Most recently, an initiative known as POWER (Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization), a joint effort led by the Appalachian Regional Commission and EDA, assists those impacted by changes in energy policy, especially coal mines and coal-fired power plants. 

These programs offer widely varying levels and types of benefits to regions, companies, and affected workers. For the most part they are reactive — making benefits available only after plants have closed or workers have lost their jobs, once beneficiaries have been certified as eligible. These programs aren’t open to those who work in a sector or company impacted more generally by industry-changing technologies like robotics, or by disruptive business models like autonomous vehicles. More importantly, when federal programs engage with workers only after the impacts of dramatic change have taken root, options available for mitigating the effects are severely limited. 

In addition to programs with an explicit mission to address economic disruptions, other agency programs sometimes provide technical assistance and resources as well. These include the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, EDA’s Economic Adjustment Program, DOL programs created by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act, and others. 

Taken as a whole, the U.S. investment in prevention, mitigation, and transition is insufficient.  The Economist found that most countries with an economy similar to ours spend six times as much as the United States on job retraining and other economic adjustment programs. Between the patchwork nature and lack of investment, it’s no surprise that Americans are finding these programs painfully inadequate.

That’s why we’re advocating for a broad new approach to economic adjustment programs in the United States. That approach would encompass several key principles missing today, including:

·      Serve “at-risk” regions, firms and workers without regard to the cause of the economic challenge;

·      Simplify determination of eligibility to promote faster access to streamlined services;

·      Provide services proactively to maximize opportunities for averting layoffs, helping companies diversify into new products and markets, and mitigating impacts;

·      Engage fully the range of business assistance and support services available through existing programs; and,

·      Provide robust benefits and services to those for whom diversification and mitigation efforts are not successful.

Dramatic changes in the global economy demand that Republicans and Democrats think differently about how to mitigate the effects of those changes and position the U.S. to succeed in the future. The American people deserve better, and our economic future depends on it.

Read our full letter to the Government Accountability Office here.

###

[VIDEO] Sen. Coons: “This is a very dangerous moment. This is no longer reality TV. This is reality.”

WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss foreign policy; specifically, the Trump administration’s recent actions against the Assad regime.

“This is a very dangerous moment. This is no longer reality TV. This is reality. We have American troops on the ground fighting in Syria against ISIS, in Iraq against ISIS. We have hundreds in Syria, thousands in Iraq, and they’re quite exposed if Russia’s ally, Iran, chooses to take action against them. They’re at some risk if Assad turns against American or coalition airplanes conducting missions against ISIS in Syria. It’s a complex and difficult situation, and I think the president needs to be clear with us what his intended next steps are,” said Senator Coons.

Full video and audio are available here.

Excerpts from the interview:

Senator Coons on the Trump administration’s policy towards the Assad regime: We don’t really know, and I think President Trump owes the United States a clear policy on how we’re going to be behaving moving forward towards Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime in Syria. We’re in the sixth year of Assad’s war against his own people. He’s killed more than 400,000 Syrians and turned millions into refugees. I am hopeful that Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, his meeting with their foreign minister, Lavrov, and possibly Putin is an opportunity for President Trump and his administration, his leaders to make it clearer exactly what position they intend to take. Obviously Sean Spicer didn’t have a good day. I think it was wise of him to correct his comments, and my hope is that we can now focus on working with President Trump and his administration, those of us in Congress on the Foreign Relations Committee, and help them focus and sharpen what their policy and strategy is going to be because they’ve made such contradictory statements just in the last two weeks. 

Senator Coons on what he would like to hear from the administration: I’m encouraged that frankly that President Trump and Secretary Tillerson and Ambassador Haley have moved from a position two weeks ago of saying that we’re just going to have to live with Assad and we need to focus on ISIS to recognizing that Assad is a brutal murderer. But I think we need to have clarity. How much farther are we willing to go? The White House was saying today that Russia almost certainly knew that Syria was about to carry out a chemical weapons attack. Are we going to ratchet up sanctions against Russia for their ongoing support for Assad? Are we willing to use force against Assad if he uses barrel bombs or other conventional weapons against his civilian population as he’s been doing for years? And how are we going to engage our vital allies across NATO and Western Europe in the fight against Assad if that’s the direction President Trump chooses to go? He’s the president, and it’s important that he develops and clarifies for the American people what policy he’s going to be pursuing going forward against Bashar al-Assad. 

More on President Trump: I think my first piece of advice to the president would be don’t make major statements on this in a tweet. Take your time. Consult with your secretary of defense and secretary of state and national security advisor and produce a more thorough and thoughtful statement in the next couple of days about what President Trump intends in terms of our direction. This is a very dangerous moment. This is no longer reality TV. This is reality. We have American troops on the ground fighting in Syria against ISIS, in Iraq against ISIS. We have hundreds in Syria, thousands in Iraq, and they’re quite exposed if Russia’s ally, Iran, chooses to take action against them. They’re at some risk if Assad turns against American or coalition airplanes conducting missions against ISIS in Syria. It’s a complex and difficult situation, and I think the president needs to be clear with us what his intended next steps are. 

Senator Coons on Sean Spicer: To be generous, I do think that what he was trying to do was to say that the use of chemical weapons air-dropped against civilians is a horrible thing and that it deserves to be confronted in the way that Trump did with an attack against the air base that launched the chemical weapons used against Syrian civilians. It’s never a good idea to bring Hitler in as an example, and obviously Spicer tripped up quite a bit. And this is a particularly inappropriate week to be overlooking the horrors of the Holocaust. So I do think the larger point here is that the administration, its spokesman, Mr. Spicer, is trying to say that Bashar al-Assad is an absolutely horrible person and that Putin and Putin’s regime is going to rue the day that they stood by as Assad carried out terrible attacks against his own people year in and year out. And they’re trying to increase pressure on Putin to make a choice here, to decide whether to rejoin the west. Remember, Putin was kicked out of the G8. The G7 is just meeting this week in Italy. There are sanctions against Putin’s regime for his aggressive actions in the Ukraine and in Syria. So to be generous, what I think Spicer was trying to do today was to raise the level of rhetorical pressure on Putin to make a choice about whether to keep backing Assad. 

###

SENATORS CALL ON DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE TO ADDRESS RECENT DOJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE REFORM DEVELOPMENTS

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chris Coons (D-DE), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) called on Deputy Attorney General nominee Rod Rosenstein – who, if confirmed, would oversee the Department of Justice’s criminal justice and police reform efforts – to explain how he would respond after Attorney General Jeff Sessions signaled a reversal of those efforts. In a letter to Rosenstein, the senators asked if he was consulted on these decisions and if he stands by his previous statement that the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to give independent legal advice.

The senators wrote:

“[I]t appears that prior to your confirmation decisions about these policies are already being made and that dramatic changes are in motion. In a public memorandum to all federal prosecutors last month, Attorney General Sessions said ‘an updated memorandum on charging for all criminal cases’ will be ‘forthcoming.’ And prior to your confirmation, the Attorney General has already appointed Steven Cook as your top deputy on criminal justice policy. Mr. Cook, who has publicly opposed bipartisan sentencing reform legislation, is described by media reports as a ‘hardliner’ who ‘fiercely supports controversial policies calling for lengthy prison sentences.’

“Changes in police reform policies are also underway.  In a March 31 memorandum, the Attorney General ordered the Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General to ‘immediately review all Department activities – including collaborative investigations and prosecutions, grant making, technical assistance and training, compliance reviews, existing or contemplated consent decrees, and task force participation.’ Then, on April 3, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to delay implementation of a consent decree to reform the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), a delay strongly opposed by the BPD and rejected by the judge on April 7.”

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

April 11, 2017

The Honorable Rod Rosenstein

United States Attorney for the District of Maryland

United States Department of Justice

36 S. Charles Street, 4^th Fl.

Baltimore, MD 21201

Dear Mr. Rosenstein:

If confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, you would oversee the Justice Department’s criminal justice and police reform efforts, which are critical to the fair and effective administration of justice in our nation.  This would be a daunting challenge under the best of circumstances, but I am concerned that actions being taken now could make your job even more difficult.  We would appreciate if you could clarify how you will respond if you are confirmed.

The Department plays a vital role in protecting public safety by prosecuting and incarcerating our nation’s most serious and violent offenders.  However, our federal prisons are about 30 percent over capacity and runaway prison expenditures are undermining other important public safety priorities, like funding for crime prevention, drug courts, and addiction treatment.  The largest increase in the federal prison population has been individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses who are then separated from their families for years on end as a result of inflexible mandatory minimum sentences.  This has a destructive effect on our communities and erodes faith in our criminal justice system.

Congress needs to pass legislation to reform our federal drug sentencing laws, but the Justice Department’s charging policies for nonviolent drug offenses also can help address this challenge.  The Smart on Crime Initiative directs federal prosecutors to reserve stiff mandatory minimum sentences for individuals convicted of the most serious offenses.  This Initiative has been very effective in focusing the Department’s limited resources on the worst offenses and ensuring that people convicted of low-level nonviolent offenses are not subject to the harshest and most inflexible penalties.

The Department also helps protect public safety by working constructively with state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to ensure compliance with federal law and the Constitution and to improve community-police relations.  The men and women of law enforcement risk their lives every day to protect us, and it is incumbent upon them to live up to the standards they have sworn to uphold.  Effective community policing must be built on a foundation of trust, accountability, and mutual respect. 

To this end, in numerous communities, the Civil Rights Division has negotiated meaningful and enforceable agreements to implement reforms that strengthen community-oriented policing, enhance training, and ensure accountability when officers fail to live up to the standards they have sworn to uphold.

As a long-serving U.S. Attorney based in Baltimore, and as a former member of the Justice Department’s Sentencing Working Group, you are very familiar with these issues.  Nonetheless, we understand you may not want to prejudge or reach any conclusions without a thorough review and consultation with the Department’s career professionals.  However, it appears that prior to your confirmation decisions about these policies are already being made and that dramatic changes are in motion. 

In a public memorandum to all federal prosecutors last month, Attorney General Sessions said “an updated memorandum on charging for all criminal cases” will be “forthcoming.” And prior to your confirmation, the Attorney General has already appointed Steven Cook as your top deputy on criminal justice policy.  Mr. Cook, who has publicly opposed bipartisan sentencing reform legislation, is described by media reports as a “hardliner” who “fiercely supports controversial policies calling for lengthy prison sentences.” 

If confirmed, you will be the chair of a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety (Task Force) that the President established by executive order.  However, on April 5, the Attorney General sent a memorandum, “Update on the Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety,” saying that the Task Force’s subcommittees are “already hard at work” and providing Mr. Cook as the point of contact.  The Attorney General directs the Task Force to provide initial recommendations no later than July 27, but says he “will continue to act upon recommendations as they become available and direct the policy of the Department on an ongoing basis.”

Changes in police reform policies are also underway.  In a March 31 memorandum, the Attorney General ordered the Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General to “immediately review all Department activities – including collaborative investigations and prosecutions, grant making, technical assistance and training, compliance reviews, existing or contemplated consent decrees, and task force participation.” Then, on April 3, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to delay implementation of a consent decree to reform the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), a delay strongly opposed by the BPD and rejected by the judge on April 7. 

We are concerned about what this memorandum may mean for the Department’s negotiations toward an enforceable consent decree to implement the findings in the Department’s January 13th report on the Chicago Police Department (CPD).  Zach Fardon, the previous U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, whose service you praised in response to questions for the record, wrote on March 13 that, “The DOJ findings report is a roadmap to addressing the systemic deficiencies in [CPD’s] training, supervision and accountability. . . .  It’s past time to give our police officers what they need to succeed.  A Consent Decree with an independent federal monitor is the only way that will happen.”

Please respond to the following questions:

1. Have you been consulted on any of the memoranda issued by the Attorney General that are cited above?  If so, please describe the nature of this consultation and the advice you have provided.
2. Have you been consulted on the “updated memorandum on charging for all criminal cases” that is “forthcoming”?  If so please describe the nature of this consultation and the advice you have provided.
3.  
1. Have you been consulted on the work of the Task Force and its subcommittees, including the appointment of Task Force and subcommittee members?  If so, please describe the nature of this consultation and the advice you have provided.
2. Please provide lists of the members of the Task Force and each Task Force subcommittee. 
4. Were you consulted on the appointment of Steven Cook as Associate Deputy Attorney General?  If so, please describe the nature of this consultation and the advice you provided. 
5. Were you consulted on the Department’s decision to seek a delay in the hearing on the proposed consent decree with the BPD?  If so, please describe the nature of this consultation and the advice you provided.
1. Have you been consulted on or participated in the Department’s discussions or negotiations regarding the Chicago Police Department?
2. In your responses to questions for the record, you said that you met on March 17 with Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson.  Please describe the details of your discussion.
3. Will you commit to continue good faith negotiations towards a consent decree with the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department?
7.  

1. Will you ask the Attorney General not to make any changes in criminal justice policies, including the Smart on Crime Initiative, until he receives the initial recommendations of the Task Force?
2. Will you ask the Attorney General not to make any changes in police reform policies until the review ordered by his March 31^st memorandum is completed?

        8.

1. Will you commit not to recommend any changes in criminal justice policies, including the Smart on Crime Initiative, until the Task Force chaired by the Deputy Attorney General makes its initial recommendations? 
2. Will you commit not to recommend any changes in police reform policies until you complete the review ordered by the Attorney General’s March 31^st memorandum?

9. In written responses to questions for the record, you agreed that the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to give independent legal advice.  You also said “generally the Department should focus on the most dangerous violent offenders” and:

“The Justice Department has multiple tools to help improve police practices. The most effective and efficient remedy in any individual matter should be determined by the particular facts and circumstances. I believe this is consistent with the approach taken by the last Administration: pattern-and-practice investigations and consent decrees may be a useful tool when there is sufficient evidence of systemic constitutional violations and local officials are not capable of properly managing their police department and maintaining public order.”

Do you commit that, if confirmed, you will adhere to these principles in leading the Task Force and the review ordered by the Attorney General’s March 31^st memorandum?

Please respond to this letter no later than April 20.  Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                                Sincerely,

-30-