WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act Modernization Act (AGOA and MCA Modernization Act) Wednesday, legislation to improve the transparency and impact of the Africa Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA) and enable the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to address regional development challenges and enhance trans-border economic growth opportunities in developing countries.
The bill allows for the establishment of concurrent compacts in eligible developing countries, providing MCC with the flexibility it needs to promote economic growth and cross-border engagement between and among nations. The bill also aims to accelerate the impact of AGOA — which offers duty-free access to the U.S. market for most exports from eligible sub-Saharan African countries — by requiring the State Department to better promote the program with sub-Saharan African governments and businesses. Similar legislation was passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year.
“This legislation will strengthen MCC’s ability to build upon an already impressive track record of cost-effective, long-term economic solutions in developing countries,” said Senator Cardin, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Compacts that cross borders, expand markets, and strengthen regional growth have the potential to lead to even higher rates of return on investment and larger scale reductions in poverty. This bill ensures that MCC has all the tools it needs to deliver smart, efficient, and effective U.S. development assistance. I am also pleased we were able to include important provisions to enhance our trade partnerships with sub-Saharan African countries and ensure the Africa Growth & Opportunity Act continues to be strengthened.”
“I believe in the power of our development assistance, and one of the keys to its success is economic growth. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has a proven track record, and I am excited to expand its ability to promote cross-border engagement in developing countries,”said Senator Isakson, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on bilateral international development. “I am glad that we are strengthening the African Growth and Opportunity Act and look forward to continuing our work throughout sub-Saharan Africa.”
“It is critical that we do all that we can in Congress to encourage sustainable economic growth in developing countries and expand American businesses’ access to overseas markets,” said Senator Coons, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on bilateral international development. “I am thrilled that this legislation will help promote trade with sub-Saharan Africa and authorize MCC concurrent compacts, increasing regional trade and stability for eligible countries.”
Over the last fifty years, economies around the world have experienced significant and sustained growth that has been fueled by support for regional infrastructure and integrated trade agreements. Developing nations, international organizations and regional economic bodies, have increasingly realized that key drivers to economic growth must involve greater cross-border collaboration and regional economic integration. Through greater regional economic collaboration countries can address deficiencies in communications, transport, and energy networks and have a targeted impact on infrastructure deficiencies, unemployment, and poverty reduction.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) plays a unique role in economic development throughout the world and has proven its ability to work with nations to improve economies and tackle issues that inhibit regional integration. Past MCC compacts have increased access to reliable power, enhanced highway corridors, and upgraded regional trading hubs, but future compacts could go further to expand the impact of MCC by giving MCC the flexibility to do additional smaller, staggered projects with multiple countries.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act Modernization Act (AGOA and MCA Modernization Act) would give MCC the authority to develop concurrent compacts with one country, if one or both of the compacts are for purposes of regional economic integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations and if the country has been able to demonstrate progress toward meeting objectives of the original compact and sufficient capacity to successfully handle additional compacts. Concurrent compacts will allow for economic growth and cross-border engagement between and among nations creating larger and more compatible markets enabling the U.S. private sector to compete more effectively and partner with the host-country private sectors. The bill also makes other improvements such as allowing MCC private sector Board Members to continue to serve after terms expire until a successor is appointed for up to one year and preserving candidacy status for countries that move into a different income peer group.
The AGOA and MCA Modernization Act also contains a number provisions to improve the transparency and utilization of the Africa Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA), which offers duty-free access to the U.S. market for most exports from eligible sub-Saharan African countries. The bill directs the State Department of promote the use of the AGOA program by establishing a website and directing embassies to promote the program. It also directs the President to implement policies that facilitate regional trade among sub-Saharan African countries and provide capacity building for companies and governments to improve AGOA utilization.
WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined NPR to discuss his Committee vote against Supreme Court nominee Judge Gorsuch and what this nomination means for the Senate and for future nominees.
“I can’t speak for the whole Democratic caucus, but I can speak for myself,” said Senator Coons. “Over the last few days, I’ve met with or spoken to more than a dozen of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, trying to craft some sort of agreement that would allow us to get past this moment and have confidence that the rules would not be broken on the next Supreme Court nominee and that there wouldn’t be a filibuster of the next nominee and we just could not get there.”
“I know many on the left think this filibuster is a great thing and are celebrating the opposition to Judge Gorsuch, but the reality is looking forward, I think we are going to be looking at a Senate where the ability to work across the aisle, the ability to reach any agreement, and the ability to slow down any future highly partisan Supreme Court nominee will be less and less,”said Senator Coons.
“When the Judiciary Committee met on Monday, I was careful to say I would join the filibuster unless we could find some way, Republicans and Democrats, to come together and to reach a binding agreement that gives us confidence that the next nominee to the Supreme Court will be more of consensus pick. Where there will be more consensus and more consultation between the president and Democrats and Republicans. That is the long tradition of the Senate. The reason that previous justices haven’t been filibustered is that there was more consultation, there was more consensus, and there was frankly more trust between the parties. You just played a quote from Sen. Grassley this morning where he suggested that there is a 200-year history of no partisan filibusters against Supreme Court nominees. I don’t know what happened over seven months to prevent Merrick Garland from getting a hearing or getting a vote, but that was nothing if not a partisan filibuster. I know many on the left think this filibuster is a great thing and are celebrating the opposition to Judge Gorsuch, but the reality is looking forward, I think we are going to be looking at a Senate where the ability to work across the aisle, the ability to reach any agreement, and the ability to slow down any future highly partisan Supreme Court nominee will be less and less.”
“Well, the key issue that you’re highlighting is that if we can’t trust each other now, if we simply confirm Judge Gorsuch and trust that they won’t break the filibuster on the next nominee…we’re in a place where that trust has been badly frayed by the mistreatment of Merrick Garland. We are in a place where both the far right and the left are very engaged, very mobilized. I received thousands of phone calls opposing Judge Gorsuch. I know that Republican colleagues received thousands of phone calls in their offices urging that they take extraordinary measures to make sure they force him onto the Court. That is one of the contributions to this division in the Senate today, is that over the last 30-40 years, there has been a steady politicization of choices to the Supreme Court. So, this is not new.”
“I can’t speak for the whole Democratic caucus, but I can speak for myself. Over the last few days, I’ve met with or spoken to more than a dozen of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, trying to craft some sort of agreement that would allow us to get past this moment and have confidence that the rules would not be broken on the next Supreme Court nominee and that there wouldn’t be a filibuster of the next nominee and we just could not get there.”
WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees, today joined MSNBC to discuss recent news regarding the chemical attack in Syria as well as his decision to oppose the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch in the Judiciary Committee on Monday.
“I reached out to many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues. I’ve had a number of meetings and conversations in recent days, trying to see if there was some agreement we could reach to trust each other to move ahead with cloture on Judge Gorsuch and have the next Supreme Court nominee be a consensus candidate, where Democrats could have input on who would be nominated. Ultimately, those efforts have been unsuccessful. This is not a good week for the Senate,” said Senator Coons.
Senator Coons on Judge Gorsuch: Let’s be clear, that effort to change the Senate rules will be taken up by Republicans. When I announced in the Judiciary Committee Monday that I would join my fellow Democrats in voting against cloture, the rest of the sentence was, unless working together, Republicans and Democrats, we can find an agreement to get past this moment.
I felt, as did all of my colleagues, that Merrick Garland was the subject of a seven-month long partisan filibuster. That denying Judge Garland, who was nominated by President Obama, even a hearing on the committee, let alone a vote, was the equivalent of a partisan filibuster. I reached out to many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues. I’ve had a number of meetings and conversations in recent days, trying to see if there was some agreement we could reach to trust each other to move ahead with cloture on Judge Gorsuch and have the next Supreme Court nominee be more of a consensus candidate, where Democrats could have input on who would be nominated. Ultimately, those efforts have been unsuccessful. This is not a good week for the Senate. I am not optimistic here around the long-term path forward. But I have no regrets about opposing Judge Gorsuch. Having really dug into his judicial record, having met with him several times, and having interviewed him over four days of Judiciary Committee hearings.
Senator Coons on Syria: This is yet another tragic humanitarian crisis caused by the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad. I don’t think it is constructivefor the Trump administration to abandon efforts to try and hold Assad to account. I hope Secretary of State Tillerson, when he goes to meet with Putin, won’t be inclined to cut some sort of deal where we provide any legitimacy or support for Russia’s efforts in Syria to back Assad. I do think that we need to be more engaged. I was one of many here in the Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee who voted to support taking military action against Assad when he first used poison gas against civilians in his country back when former President Barack Obama drew that red line.
More on Syria and the Middle East: It is a mess. Syria and Iraq have been profoundly reshaped by ISIS and by the long going, grinding civil war within Syria, which is really a war of Assad against his own people. We have made real progress with our coalition partners in pushing ISIS out of Mosul. We are poised for success in taking Raqqa back from ISIS. But, I’m gravely concerned we don’t have the investment in diplomacy and development resources to secure the piece after ISIS is driven out of the two main cities. The president has proposed dramatic cuts to our diplomatic and development spending. I think that is exactly the wrong direction to go in at this time. In our previous experience in Iraq, it showed that. We can be successful militarily. But, if we don’t invest in stabilizing the countries and providing a positive alternative to extremism, poverty and terrorism, inevitably, we’ll be back there again five or ten years from now.
Senator Coons on the Foreign Relations Committee’s strategy for the Middle East: Senator Bob Corker, who’s the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Ben Cardin, who’s the ranking member and Senator from Maryland, we’re working in a bipartisan way to develop and craft and focus the strategy for the Middle East. The situation is somewhat chaotic and unstable. I think it is important that the Senate engage with this administration to make it clear, who are our vital allies that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with, such as Israel and Jordan, and who are we willing to work with in order to secure some more progress towards peace here? Who are we working with in Iraq? Who are we working with in Turkey? What are we doing with the Kurds? There are a lot of unanswered questions about what our strategy needs to be going forward. We’ve had several hearings. We’ve had direct meetings and conversations with Nikki Haley, Secretary Tillerson, and I am optimistic about the Senate playing a stronger role in this Congress and helping shape strategy with regards to Syria.
Washington, DC – Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Congressmen Peter Welch (D-VT) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) today delivered bipartisan letters to President Donald Trump calling on the administration’s support and use of the Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs). These public-private partnerships allow the federal government to modernize federal infrastructure and improve energy and water services through innovative financing.
ESPCs and UESCs have been primarily driven through executive branch and agency leadership and commitments. During the previous two administrations, there have been high level efforts to build on these commitments. Including, President Bush’s efforts to undertake improved tracking mechanisms as well as President Obama’s commitment of $4 billion in private sector investment through ESPCs and UESCs over five years.
The members urged the White House to continue to support these public-private contracting opportunities to save tax payers money, create jobs, and ensure efficient energy and water consumption at our federal facilities.
Additionally, last week the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee advanced S.239, the Energy Savings Through Public-Private Partnerships Act of 2017, authored by Senators Gardner and Coons. The legislation is complementary to the message of this letter to the President. The legislation clarifies aspects of the statute to further encourage the use of performance contracting of this type in Federal facilities.
The full letter, signed by 33 Senators and 41 House members, can be read in its entirety below.
Signers include Senator Alexander, Senator Baldwin, Senator Bennet, Senator Boozman, Senator Brown, Senator Cantwell, Senator Carper, Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Donnelly, Senator Franken, Senator Graham, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Heller, Senator Hirono, Senator Hoeven, Senator Inhofe, Senator Isakson, Senator King, Senator Markey, Senator Merkley, Senator Murkowski, Senator Portman, Senator Reed, Senator Sanders, Senator Schatz, Senator Shaheen, Senator Sullivan, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Wyden and Senator Young.
We are writing today to express our strong support for the continued utilization of Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs) within the federal government. These public-private partnerships provide a framework that allows the federal government to modernize federal infrastructure and improve energy and water services through innovative financing.
ESPCs have accounted for at least $12 billion of privately-financed improvements to federal buildings over the past 20 years. Once an ESPC is identified by the federal government and an ESPC agreement is formed, the project is financed and executed by private entities and paid for through the future energy savings. UESCs are also an excellent approach to meeting energy and water efficiency needs within the federal government. ESPCs and UESCs reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on energy and water, allowing the federal government to upgrade facilities and meet its resource needs without impact on the federal Treasury.
While ESPCs and UESCs are authorized by law, their use is almost entirely driven by executive branch and agency leadership and commitments which we think deserve your continued support. For the last two administrations, there have been high level efforts to build on these commitments. President Bush undertook tracking mechanisms and raised encouragement to a secretarial activity at the Department of Energy, led by Energy Secretary Bodman. President Obama committed to $4 billion in private sector investment through ESPCs and UESCs over five years, which was widely encouraged on Capitol Hill from a bipartisan group of 179 Members.
In summary, we urge you to continue to support this type of public-private contracting. ESPCs and UESCs have the co-benefits of achieving energy cost savings, increasing government facility resiliency and security, and eliminating the need for federal dollars for infrastructure improvements. We believe that your administration is well positioned to use public-private performance contracting to the strongest extent possible to eliminate unnecessary spending in our federal facilities. We hope you will work with us to ensure the success of these valuable energy savings financing tools.
WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined CNN’s New Day to discuss recent news regarding the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch and the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
“If we look down the road, the further erosion of the system here in the Senate that has kept us different from the House, the erosion of the protections for minority political rights of the filibuster would be, I think, a very grave step. We have got just two days now until the cloture vote. What that really means is that we are ready to stop debate and move to a final vote. I said in the Judiciary Committee yesterday that I intend to vote against cloture because I don’t think we are yet ready to close debate. I will vote against cloture unless we are able to find some way together, Republicans and Democrats, to preserve the tradition of consultation and of the nomination by the president of a consensus candidate who can win confirmation by both parties.”
“We need a solid bipartisan investigation of all the different allegations about this. And an important point here is the White House keeps trying to find some way to justify President Trump’s tweet from a month ago that he had been wiretapped. I don’t think this provides any sort of cover for that. And given the very important developments this week, President Trump’s meetings with the president of Egypt, with the king of Jordan, with the president of China, this isn’t reality TV anymore. This is no time for Twitter diplomacy. We need to focus on our work here in the Senate and the president needs to focus on important international diplomacy issues.”
Senator Coons on Susan Rice: From what I’ve heard, there is nothing unusual or alarming here about the allegations here about the national security advisor. But that’s why we need the Senate Intelligence Committee to work well, to work hard and to work in a bipartisan way. There were also allegations earlier this week that the UAE set up a back channel between a Putin crony and the founder of Blackwater. There are more shoes dropping day after day, and more black smoke pouring out of every window, door, and chimney of this house than we can keep track of. We need a solid bipartisan investigation of all the different allegations about this. And an important point here is the White House keeps trying to find some way to justify President Trump’s tweet from a month ago that he had been wiretapped. I don’t think this provides any sort of cover for that. And given the very important developments this week, President Trump’s meetings with the president of Egypt, with the king of Jordan, with the president of China, this isn’t reality TV anymore. This is no time for Twitter diplomacy. We need to focus on our work here in the Senate and the president needs to focus on important international diplomacy issues.
More on Susan Rice: I didn’t see her PBS interview. Obviously, this is a topic subject to a number of controls. There are processes by which an intelligence official can request unmasking, but, as your previous reporter commented, that is very closely tracked. And, so, she would have had to articulate an intelligence justification for doing that. This is exactly why we need a strong and thorough investigation, to make sure that where there are allegations made, they are thoroughly investigated. I am hopeful about the progress here in the Senate with our Intelligence Committee. I remain very concerned that given Congressman Devin Nunes’ side scurry over to the White House two weeks ago, that the House Intelligence Committee has gotten badly off-track and I hope they too get back to our core mission in the House and Senate of oversight.
Senator Coons on Judge Gorsuch and what this means for future Supreme Court nominees: That is right. That is a very legitimate concern. If we look down the road, the further erosion of the system here in the Senate that has kept us different from the House, the erosion of the protections for minority political rights of the filibuster would be, I think, a very grave step. We have got just two days now until the cloture vote. What that really means is that we are ready to stop debate and move to a final vote. I said in the Judiciary Committee yesterday that I intend to vote against cloture because I don’t think we are yet ready to close debate. I will vote against cloture unless we are able to find some way together, Republicans and Democrats, to preserve the tradition of consultation and of the nomination by the president of a consensus candidate who can win confirmation by both parties. That didn’t happen in this case. President Trump largely relied on the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for his list of nominees.
More on Judge Gorsuch: I’m not digging in. I’m saying that I am open to conversations about how we might preserve the filibuster. There are three paths forward here and now it is clear to the Republican majority that if they choose to break the rules, to change the rules, that will be on them. There are Democrats and Republicans who I hope will be talking this week, in the next two days, to see if we could find some path forward where we preserve the filibuster for exactly the reasons you are laying out. But they can break the rules and force Judge Gorsuch on to the court. They could step back and recognize this is an historic moment. Now it’s clear both sides have the votes and we need to have a conversation, or they could consult with us and reconsider Judge Gorsuch’s nomination. Those are the three paths and it is my hope the Senate will play its historic role and folks here will be talking in the next two days.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today announced his decision to oppose in Committee the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
There have been just 112 Supreme Court Justices in our nation’s entire history. These jurists have decided cases that have shaped the interpretation and application of our Constitution and influenced the lives of generations of Americans. Some of these cases are celebrated turning points in our Nation’s long quest to form a more perfect Union. Cases like Brown v. Board of Education that ended racial segregation in schools. Cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, that ensured all, even criminal defendants and the penniless, are entitled to council. Cases like Obergefell that decided it is the law of the land that couples can affirm their commitment in marriage, whether they are of opposite sex, or same sex. There are other signature cases like Dred Scott and Korematsu that have left stains on our history that have outlived the service of any one judge.
Since Antonin Scalia passed away, in February 2016, I have reflected on the importance of our Supreme Court and the Senate’s responsibility to confirm the nominee of the President. Just over 25 years ago, I was myself a law student intern on the Senate Judiciary Committee nomination unit for then Chairman Joe Biden. At that time, I had heard from long serving Senators a record of grievances and wrongs committed from one party against another in a variety of confirmations and hearings in the Bush and Reagan administrations and before. And I’m struck that half of the committee serving here today hasn’t previously participated in any Supreme Court confirmation on this committee. When Justice Scalia died, I called on President Obama to nominate a consensus candidate to the Court that would help us to bridge our deep partisan divides and enhance the legitimacy of the Court on which our rule of law so profoundly depends, and President Obama did just that.
He nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland, by any accounts, one of the most centrist and confirmable nominees ever nominated to the Supreme Court. But instead of healing the wounds left by partisan battles long since passed, new ones formed. Republicans held the seat open for over 300 days without regard for the damage of doing so to the Court or to this body, and I appreciate my colleague, Senator Franken’s defense of the speech once given by my former boss in this committee, Senator Biden. Let me be clear, this action by my colleagues was unacceptable and has scarred this process and this body. As Senator Cornyn previously remarked, there has never been a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history. While technically correct, I question what a seven month refusal to hold a hearing or vote is, if not the longest partisan filibuster on this committee ever. I haven’t forgotten the injustice done to Judge Garland and neither have any of my colleagues, but we simply cannot move this committee and this body forward if we endlessly obsess over past grievances and revenge.
So, unlike the majority leader who announced before that if there was any nominee from President Obama that he wouldn’t get a hearing, I pledged to treat President Trump’s nominee fairly and to engage actively in this process, and I did so. Throughout this process, I have kept an open mind. After reviewing Judge Gorsuch’s record, after meeting with him twice, after participating in four days of very well-run Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings submitting questions and getting feedback from literally thousands of Delawareans, I have decided that I will not support Judge Gorsuch’s nomination in the Judiciary Committee today. I appreciate that Judge Gorsuch is an intelligent jurist and an engaging writer. I admire his commitment to being a good father to his daughters, a good husband to his wife, and a good mentor to his clerks, and I even agree with many of his decisions, but I believe that my role in evaluating his nomination is more than reviewing his resume. It is more than recognizing that he his smart and charming and I have to do more than think about a large number of consensus decisions, because the law is shaped by circuit courts, and even more so in the Supreme Court, by a handful of very significant signature decisions.
Thus, I must follow my predecessor’s practice in considering Judge Gorsuch’s philosophy and its impact on the Constitutional rights of others, even those very different from himself and with values different from his own. That’s why my questions at Judge Gorsuch’s hearings focused on his view of American’s right to privacy and liberty to make their most important personal life decisions. At the hearings, I focused in on a 10th Circuit case written by Judge Gorsuch, Hobby Lobby, which for the first time allowed for-profit companies to refuse to provide thousands of employees access to family planning based on the for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs. I laid out in great detail in the confirmation hearing why I viewed that as not just a strange reading or an over-reach, but as one that is widely outside the context of previous law, but I think I can summarize this best by quoting Chief Judge Briscoe’s dissent in that same case. It struck me. She said that Judge Gorsuch’s view was nothing short of a radical revision of First Amendment law, as well as the law of corporations, and that such views were wholly unsupported by the language of the Free Exercise Clause or the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Jurisprudence.
In his concurrence in Hobby Lobby, Judge Gorsuch advanced a broad theory of the Religious Theory Restoration Act under which an employer could avoid complying with any neutral, universally applicable law in order to avoid complicity in the wrong-doing of others. I pressed Judge Gorsuch to give me a limiting principle to this new complicity theory, but was left in the end with more questions than answers. I also asked Judge Gorsuch about his understanding of core constitutional provisions that protect reproductive rights, death with dignity, and marriage equality. In his 2006 book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Judge Gorsuch was critical of an individual’s right make their own end-of-life decisions and asserted, and I quote, “…that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of life by private persons is always wrong.” His book and other comments suggest a very narrow interpretation of a key precedent, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, an absolutely central case to addressing personal liberty and reproductive rights as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause. Casey is a critical precedent that the Supreme Court has continually relied on for 25 years to protect the freedom of many, including most recently, the freedom of same-sex couples to have intimate relationships and to support marriage equality as the law of the land.
On each of these important issues and more, Judge Gorsuch avoided responding concisely and thoroughly to questions. In fact, as detailed by Senator Feinstein, he avoided responding to questions that many other nominees, nominated by both Republicans and Democrats, have not just answered but answered squarely. He told me that the Casey decision remains an open question in many ways. He would not agree with me that the right to privacy today extends to protecting women’s right to have autonomy over their reproductive choices and to protecting the privacy of intimate relations between consenting adults, whether same-sex or the opposite sex. This and many more left me concerned Judge Gorsuch harbors a restrictive view of the right to privacy and personal liberty rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But let me be clear, I don’t think these and other issues raised by many of my colleagues are just narrowly partisan issues.
I think it is unfortunate if we lead the public to view members of the Supreme Court simply as red or blue, deciding cases along partisan lines, because there are many cases that are decided not along partisan lines but along lines that are narrowly legal. In fact, I think in 60 percent of the cases decided by the Court, they are unanimous. Indeed, several of the justices nominated by Republican presidents have appreciated exactly this point, the important role of Fourteenth Amendment due process in securing individual liberties and have taken a far more restrained view of their judicial role than Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests he would adopt. Judge Gorsuch’s record shows a tendency to searchingly explore broader issues than is necessary to solve the case before him, a willingness to revisit long-settled precedent, and to promote actively changes to the law. As others have discussed, he has insisted that the Chevron Doctrine should be revisited. This doctrine is a long-standing precedent that ensures Judicial Deference to agency experts responsible for health and safety and environmental consumer protection regulations. Even more troubling for me, he suggested restricting access to federal courts for actions brought under section 1983, a critical tool for civil rights enforcement. It is based on these and many other concerns that I have detailed in my questioning, my questions for the record, and in further statements I’ve made, that I will ultimately vote against Judge Gorsuch’s nomination today.
Still, I share the view of many of my colleagues that Judge Gorsuch is a talented and experienced jurist. I understand why all of my Republican colleagues will support him and why some of my Democrat colleagues will support him today as well. I cast my vote well aware that he will receive the required votes on this committee to advance to the full Senate. We are at a historic moment in the history of the United States Senate. Thanks to actions, decisions, even mistakes made by both Democrats and Republicans over recent years, over many years, we have eroded the process for reaching agreement and have dishonored our long traditions of acting above partisanship, especially when it comes to confirmations of judges and now justices. I said last week, it would be tragic if Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation process leads the Senate Republicans to join the majority leader in abolishing the 60 vote threshold for cloture on nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Let’s be frank, the majority leader has assured us he will abolish the 60 vote threshold for Judge Gorsuch if the Democrats don’t support him on the Senate floor. I don’t agree with that approach, but like it or not, as many of you have asserted today, that is the reality.
On Thursday, the full Senate will participate in what’s called a ‘cloture vote.’ It’s one of the Senate’s many long traditions, and though many Americans might not know exactly what it means, it means that we are done debating, that we are ready for the final vote. And almost always a combination of both Democrats and Republicans are required for us to get to cloture. So, on Thursday, we’ll be voting to decide whether we’re ready to finish debating the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. I am not ready to end debate on this issue, so I will be voting against cloture unless we are able, as a body, to finally sit down and find a way to avoid ‘the nuclear option’ and ensure that the process to fill the next vacancy on the Court is not a narrowly partisan process, but rather an opportunity for both parties to weigh in and ensure we place a judge on the Court who can secure support from members of both parties.
The reality we are in requires us over the next several days to consider what both Democrats and Republicans are doing to this body and to consider what both Republicans and Democrats have done to erode the trust that has long lasted between us. We must consider whether we can stop the undeniable momentum towards abolishing the traditions that make this Senate unique and important. Democrats, including me, are still furious at the way Judge Merrick Garland was treated last year, but the traditions and principles that have defined this Senate are crumbling and we are poised to hasten that destruction this week. So, for my part, I hope and pray that we can yet find a way together to find a solution.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Wolf Blitzer on CNN following the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
“I said I will vote against cloture unless the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can somehow find an agreement that is trustworthy and reliable where on the next Supreme Court nominee they won’t change the rules and we will have input and a more confirmable consensus nominee will be put in front of the Senate. I’m not saying that I am insisting that we force the Republican majority to break the rules. That’s a choice they’re going to have to make. The Republican majority is going to have to decide now how they will act in response to Democrats saying we’re not ready to vote for cloture. We need to see if there is still any hope, any way, that they will back off the nuclear option in exchange for some understanding about how they will handle the next nominee.”
Additional excerpts from the interview are below:
“As you may have heard in another point in the hearings this morning, in the Judiciary Committee markup, Senator Cornyn of Texas very pointedly said that there has never been a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in Senate history. In my remarks, I said if seven months of preventing Judge Merrick Garland from getting a hearing and a vote is anything, it is the longest and most successful partisan filibuster in Senate history. In the end of my remarks at the Committee today, I also remarked that what cloture means, we will be taking a cloture vote this Thursday, what that means is we are done debating; that 60 members of the Senate agree that we’re ready for the final vote. I said to be clear that I am not yet ready for us to be done debating and for us to get to the final vote. So I will vote against cloture on Thursday.”
“I’m saying we need to begin that conversation. Now that it’s clear there are 41 Democrats willing and ready to vote against cloture, we have to have a conversation about how we got here and where we’re going. I’m very skeptical, very skeptical given just how much distrust and disagreement there is. How much what’s happened to Judge Garland and now happening to Judge Gorsuch has divided our parties. Quite skeptical we can come to any sort of an understanding. But I wanted to be clear that what I said in hearing today if you run my entire quote was I’m going to vote against cloture unless there’s some path forward between Republicans and Democrats that we can trust that allows us to have confidence they will not change the rules on the next confirmation. “
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered remarks in the Senate Judiciary Committee and announced his decision to oppose in Committee the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.
“On Thursday, the full Senate will participate in what’s called a ‘cloture vote.’ It’s one of the Senate’s many long traditions, and though many Americans might not know exactly what it means, it means that we are done debating, that we are ready for the final vote. And almost always a combination of both Democrats and Republicans are required for us to get to cloture. So, on Thursday, we’ll be voting to decide whether we’re ready to finish debating the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. I am not ready to end debate on this issue, so I will be voting against cloture unless we are able, as a body, to finally sit down and find a way to avoid ‘the nuclear option’ and ensure that the process to fill the next vacancy on the Court is not a narrowly partisan process, but rather an opportunity for both parties to weigh in and ensure we place a judge on the Court who can secure support from members of both parties.”
Monday, April 3 at 10 a.m. – The Senator will attend a Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting. Votes on the nominations of Judge Neil Gorsuch, to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Rod Rosenstein, to be Deputy Attorney General, and Rachel Brand, to be Associate Attorney General, are on the Committee’s agenda. Hart Senate Office Building 216, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, April 4 at 10 a.m. – The Senator will meet with Delaware Local Union 74. Local 74 has represented Delaware’s plumbers and pipefitters for nearly 30 years in the First State.
Tuesday, April 4 at 2:45 p.m. – The Senator will meet with Delaware members of the Laborers International Union of North America. LIUNA represents nearly a half million laborers around the country and “fights for better wages and benefits, safer job sites and greater opportunity.”
Wednesday, April 5 at 12:45 p.m. – The Senator will meet with Delawareans from the National Down Syndrome Society. The NDSS is the leading human rights organization for all individuals with Down syndrome. The National Down Syndrome Society envisions a world in which all people with Down syndrome have the opportunity to enhance their quality of life, realize their life aspirations and become valued members of welcoming communities.
Wednesday, April 5 at 6 p.m. — The Senator will attend aBank of America executive leadership reception. Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave SE, Washington, D.C.
Thursday, April 6 at 9 a.m. — The Senator, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will speak at the Brookings Institution in Washington about the Russian government’s interference in European elections and what Congress must do to push back on Russian efforts to undermine Western democracy. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization whose mission is to conduct in-depth research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national and global level. 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Thursday, April 6 at 2 p.m. — The Senator will meet with students from Concord High School from Wilmington, DE who are members of the SourceAmerica Design Challenge team. The students are visiting Washington as state champions of the challenge, which is a national engineering competition aimed at creating innovative workplace technology for people with disabilities. U.S. Capitol Visitors Center, Washington, D.C. Open to press.
Thursday, April 6 at 2:20 p.m. — The Senator will meet with the Delaware Volunteer Firefighters Association delegation. Representing more than 60 volunteer fire companies in Delaware, the Delaware DVFA protects Delaware homeowners against fires and educates the community on fire prevention.
Thursday, April 6 at 5:30 p.m. — The Senator will attend the 29th Annual National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner. Since 1989, fire service leaders from across the nation have traveled to Washington, DC to attend CFSI’s National Fire and Emergency Services Symposium and Dinner. Each year, approximately 2,000 fire and emergency officials participate in the program, attending seminars, conducting meetings with members of Congress and networking to build relationships. Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Friday, April 7 at 6:30 p.m. – The Senator will co-host the screening for “Warlords of Ivory” with People to People Delaware and World Trade Center Delaware at the Delaware Museum of Natural History. The connections between wildlife trafficking and international security and stability will be highlighted with a screening of the National Geographic Explorer film followed by a panel discussion featuring local, national and international experts. To register, http://www.delmnh.org/event/warlordsofivory/Delaware Museum of Natural History, 4840 Kennett Pike, Wilmington, DE. Open to press.
WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) delivered the William D. Carey Lecture for Leadership in Science Policy at the Science & Technology Forum hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Senator Coons’ full remarks are available on his Medium page.
“An understanding and appreciation of science is more important than ever today because America’s ability to lead the world in innovation is deeply at risk. I say this not to be melodramatic about the current political environment, but to make clear how serious the challenge is, not just today, but for years and decades to come.”
“In short, I’m calling for all of us to work with Congress and to fight for open data, open minds, and open arms. Open data unleashes the innovative potential of the world’s brightest scientists and inventors. Open minds give us an assurance that long-term investments in scientific research will pay future dividends we can’t even imagine. And open arms welcome those who want to study, start a business, and change the world as Americans.”