WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked for a second time in two days legislation that would require super PACs to disclose donations and expenditures of $10,000 or more within 24 hours. The DISCLOSE Act, which U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) cosponsored, was a modest attempt at lessening the destructive impact the Citizens United decision is having on American elections.
“Transparency is critical for free and fair elections and for democracy to function,” Senator Coons said during remarks on the floor on Monday night. “The people of this country — the voters, the constituents, those whom we serve and those who hire and fire all who serve them in federal and state and local offices — need to know who they represent, who is funding their campaigns, what goals they will pursue in office, and whether the ends serve their interests.”
Senator Coons was one of more than two-dozen Democratic senators who lined up to speak on the floor about the DISCLOSE Act on Monday night. Click here for a condensed version of Senator Coons’ 22-minute remarks: http://bit.ly/NGWAIX.
“If the Citizens United case has tilted elections toward those with the money to buy them, the DISCLOSE Act is an opportunity to level the playing field a little bit,” Senator Coons said. “Instead of with money, it arms voters with information.”
The relative anonymity afforded super PACs has, Senator Coons argued, allowed powerful special interests, corporations, and wealthy individuals to ratchet-up the negativity of political campaigns.
“These super PACs are not raising hundreds of millions of dollars to run campaign ads that are updates on the latest sports scores, or are filled with YouTube videos of sneezing pandas or yawning kittens,” Senator Coons said. “These super PACs are gearing up to run the most negative possible campaign ads–the sorts of ads that can change hearts and minds because they have no accountability, because they have no one’s name at the bottom line, because they feel free and are free to make the nastiest and most unfounded personal attacks. These super PACs are designed to divide us, and they are doing a great job.”
Senate Republicans successfully prevented consideration of the DISCLOSE Act on Monday, lining up against the measure in a failed 51-44 vote. A procedural maneuver allowed a second attempt at consideration on Tuesday, but the bill ultimately failed by a vote of 53-45.
Senator Coons is also a cosponsor of a joint resolution introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) that would amend the Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.
WASHINGTON – Speaking during a Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing on the cyber vulnerabilities of the nation’s power grid, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) today called for urgent action to protect America’s critical infrastructure from cyber attacks. Senator Coons is currently working with other Senate leaders to shape a way forward on comprehensive cyber security legislation to keep our nation safe from what Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta previously warned is a “high risk” of “another Pearl Harbor” in the form of a cyber attack on the United States.
“There are very few issues I lose more sleep about than our cyber capabilities,” Senator Coons said. “We know the groups that are interested in a cyber attack on the United States, we know what they are capable of, and we know where we are vulnerable. It is essential that we take urgent action to mitigate this risk and keep our country’s critical infrastructure, like our electric grid, safe and reliable for families and businesses in Delaware and across the country.”
Senator Coons stressed at this morning’s hearing the need for a comprehensive cyber security strategy that coordinates federal, state and local law enforcement efforts to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure, much of which is now networked and online.
Senator Coons asked Joseph McClelland, Director of the Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to assess the current state of information sharing across silos. Director McClelland noted “there is certainly room for improvement” and said “the threats are moving at lightning speed.” McClelland stressed that in this networked, integrated environment, “no one can live in isolation.”
The witnesses at this morning’s hearing were Joseph McClelland, Director of the Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director of Information and Technology at the Government Accountability Office; Gerry Cauley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and Todd Snitchler, Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) joined U.S. Senators Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Tuesday in introducing the Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act of 2012 to help American companies protect their valuable trade secrets. Stolen trade secrets cost American companies billions of dollars each year and threaten their ability to innovate and compete globally. The bill ensures that companies have the most effective and efficient ways to combat trade secret theft and recoup their losses, helping them to maintain their global competitive edge.
“When a company’s trade secrets are stolen, the company loses its competitive edge and the jobs of its employees are threatened,” Senator Coons said. “We must do all we can to ensure that American innovators are able to protect themselves from economic espionage. The Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act would establish a strong and uniform federal civil remedy for companies that deal in trade secrets to recover for their theft. It is my hope that the Senate takes up this bill for consideration and sends a clear signal that we will not sit idly by while American companies’ ideas are stolen.”
“We cannot take lightly the threat of trade secret theft to American businesses, American jobs, and American innovation,” Senator Kohl, the bill’s original sponsor, said. “This legislation is another simple and straightforward step we can take to help companies defend themselves against trade secret theft. It demonstrates our commitment at the federal level to protect all forms of a business’s intellectual property and their innovative spirit.”
The Protecting American Trade Secrets and Innovation Act expands the legal options for victims of economic espionage and trade secret theft by allowing victims of trade secret theft to bring civil lawsuits against the offender in federal court. Today, companies that fall victim to economic espionage and trade secret theft often can only bring civil actions in state court, under a patchwork of state laws, to stop the harm or seek compensation for losses. While state courts may be a suitable venue in some cases, major trade secret cases will often require tools available more readily in federal court, such as nationwide service of process for subpoenas, discovery and witness depositions. In addition, for trade secret holders operating nationwide, a single federal statute can be more efficient than navigating 50 different state laws.
Senator Coons is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. President, I rise today to join the chorus of voices from our caucus who have tonight spoken to the value, to the importance of transparency in elections. Transparency, as we all know, is critical for free and fair elections and for democracy to function, because the people of this country–the voters, the constituents, those whom we serve and those who hire and fire all who serve them at Federal and State and local offices–need to know who they represent, who is funding their campaigns, what goals they will pursue in office, and whether the ends serve their interests. Tonight, as the Presiding Officer knows all too well, colleagues have joined to speak in support of the DISCLOSE Act–a bill that would make important progress toward clearing away the clouds that have been laid on the face of the American body public because of the decision of Citizens United.
The integrity and the fairness of our elections is at the very heart of American democracy. It is in some ways the proudest legacy of our Founding Fathers and, in my view, a beacon to the rest of the world. A difficult, a regular part of modern electioneering, of modern campaigns, is campaign ads. In fact, many of us spend a huge amount of our time raising the money and delivering the content to connect with our constituents through television. I am blessed to represent a small state–roughly 800,000 souls–so we actually get to campaign door to door, to go door-knocking, to meet people in person in my State. But, still, television ads play a very important part. In other larger States, folks will often never even meet in person the candidates for offices in the House and in the Senate or for President, and television ads there dominate the whole campaign election process. No one likes campaign ads, but they are a part of our politics, and an effective and, sadly, a powerful part as well.
For most of our modern political history, voters at least knew who the ads were coming from–the candidates and the parties that supported them–and could make judgments accordingly. If someone thought an add was too nasty, they could vote against the candidate who ran it. That is the whole point, forcing us as candidates to own our ads, to say, “I am Chris Coons and I approved this ad.” We all know as candidates who have stood before our electorate how it feels to put our personal name, our face, to an ad that might be hitting a little too hard, and that pulls us back from sometimes overreaching.
But what we are here to talk about tonight is the whole new world that has been unleashed by a Supreme Court decision. In my view, the basic right of every American to free and fair elections has been compromised by a new flood of tens of hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy individuals, from corporations, from shadowy national special interest groups, since the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, opened these floodgates to unlimited secret campaign activities, threatening to overwhelm the fundamental trust of our constituents and the transparency so essential to our democracy.
As a lawyer, Citizens United was one of the most surprising Supreme Court decisions of my life, because it radically upended settled constitutional understanding as well as bipartisan agreement that had been reached here in the Senate regarding appropriate limitations on corporate speech. When the McCain-Feingold law passed in 2002, 6 years prior, it showed a strong bipartisan intent to rein in corporate spending, to rein in and manage spending by interests of all kinds in politics. That is why I was shocked when, in the opinion in Citizens United, it was joined by the so-called “originalist” or “strict constructionist” members of the Court. The originalist mode of interpretation of the Constitution attacks every question by asking a common question: Would the Framers have thought the action or law being challenged before the Supreme Court is constitutional?
That is why, if one had asked me in 2008, looking at Citizens United and at the issues presented to the Court, whether an originalist interpreting the first amendment would have found the corporate electioneering regulations this body had adopted in McCain-Feingold to be valid, it seems to me there was only one possible answer, and that was yes.
Our Founding Fathers recognized corporations are creatures not endowed, as the rest of us are, with inalienable rights. They are, rather, fictional, legal creatures–creatures of legislative grace. Were this not the case, the corporation by the name of Citizens United–the corporation that was at issue in this decision–wouldn’t have stopped at simply making a movie attacking Hillary Clinton, but would have actually cast a vote against Hillary Clinton. Of course, it couldn’t. Corporations don’t have bad hair days; corporations don’t have tasteless ties; corporations don’t have moods and opinions. Corporations are not people. They exist as people only in legal fiction.
I would note the first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” If freedom of speech included fictional entities, nonhuman entities such as corporations, there would have been no reason to separately affirm that the press also enjoyed that freedom granted to real, living, breathing individuals. In my view, then, Citizens United was wrongly decided.
As shown through a long line of legislative and judicial interpretation, a view of corporations as having first amendment rights that are limited, and can and should be limited more than can be limited for real, living, breathing individuals, has remained the dominant one throughout our modern history.
In 1907, the Tillman Act prohibited campaign contributions by corporations. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act prohibited expenditures and the application of this law further. It was upheld by the Court in 1957 in U.S. v. Automobile Workers. When the Supreme Court first made the leap from the expenditure/contribution distinction in Buckley v. Valeo in 1971, even then it left intact the longstanding distinction between the first amendment rights of living, breathing individuals and corporations–legal fictional entities.
In the 1982 case of FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, Justice Rehnquist wrote for a unanimous Court that it was proper to treat corporations more restrictively than people. Oh, how I wish that were the majority opinion of the Court today.
The further analysis in 1986 in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, though striking down restrictions on speech by a pro-life organization, actually underscored the original understanding that when the Constitution protects corporate speech, it only does so as a proxy for the underlying free speech rights of real, living, breathing individuals. In that case, a nonprofit organized and funded specifically for the purpose of bringing about a political goal–pro-life policies–was seen as having free speech rights only because of the rights of those individuals who funded it and organized it. When we talk about a corporation’s first amendment rights, then, we should be using shorthand for the first amendment rights of those who are its shareholders or who own it or who control it.
The corporate/individual distinction was even again affirmed as recently as 1990 in the Austin case.
The constitutional history of limitations on corporate speech was so clear that the Supreme Court had upheld the McCain-Feingold Act in 2003, just 6 years before they struck it down. What possibly could have changed in those intervening years that would be so convincing to an originalist mindset? I don’t know. In my view, this decision did not make sense. But I do know that campaign finance, which was a bipartisan issue in this Chamber in 2003, where Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, a Democrat and a Republican, led a strong bipartisan coalition to rein in the negative influence of special interest money–that has changed. That has shifted to today, sadly, a starkly partisan issue.
As we have seen today, Senator after Senator of the other party has risen to speak about lots of issues, but none has addressed head-on why disclosure is no longer in the best interests of our citizens, why transparency is no longer essential to democracy. Yet Democrat after Democrat, Senator after Senator from my side of the aisle, has risen to stand firmly with those organized by Senator Whitehouse who has led so ably this discourse on the floor today, who view the DISCLOSE Act not as curing the errors of Citizens United but as striking one important blow, to ripping the cover off the millions of dollars in secret contributions that today I think threaten to swamp our electoral ship.
If the Citizens United case has tilted elections toward those with the money to buy them, the DISCLOSE Act is to me an opportunity to level the playing field a little bit. Instead of with money, it arms voters with information.
The DISCLOSE Act does just what its name suggests: It requires disclosure. It requires any covered organization, including unions, corporations, and super PACs, which spends $10,000 or more on certain campaign activities to promptly file a report with the FEC–to file a report with the Federal Election Commission–within 24 hours. This brings some measure of fairness and transparency back to our elections so voters can make informed decisions instead of simply being pushed and prodded and ultimately duped by a flood of negative ads.
I am confident it does not restrict or limit free speech of any kind. This bill simply allows voters–those who are in the driver’s seat or should be in our system, those who hire and fire us–to see who is spending money to influence their decision at the ballot box.
The DISCLOSE Act imposes the minimum possible burden on organizations spending vast amounts of money on elections, while still requiring the kind of prompt and timely disclosure voters deserve and expect in this electronic, in this digital age, where the ads that flood the airwaves, that push for a decision, happen so close to an election that it is important to have disclosure real time.
We voted on the DISCLOSE Act earlier tonight, but my colleagues across the aisle lined up in lockstep against it. Sadly, every Member of the other party voted against it. What is so wrong with voters having information about who is trying to influence their vote? Why is this basic information so important to hide from the American people? Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited, should be swift, should be available so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.
I could not agree more. I agreed when the esteemed Republican leader said those exact words in 1997, and I agree with them today. “Disclosure” he said, “is the best disinfectant.”
Earlier today I had the honor of presiding, as you do now, Mr. President, and I got to listen to the Republican minority leader speak against disclosure. There are many other issues to which we can and should turn. There are many other important issues before our country, and he raised them all in turn. But the thing I had the hardest time with was his leading the other caucus, one after the other, to speak against, to vote against disclosure–something he himself, the Republican leader, spoke so forcefully in favor of as recently as 1997: “Disclosure is the best disinfectant.” Back then, the talking points for the other caucus were: Spend all you want. There should be no limits on campaign contributions as long as there is disclosure. Disclosure will keep things open and fair.
Sadly, today, even that small measure of rationality has been openly abandoned. Voters in my home State do not want secret spending clouding the legitimacy of our elections. They want to exercise this most basic American right out in the sunshine–with knowledge, with information about who backs whom–just as, I believe, our Founders intended.
Let’s face it, folks. These super PACs are not raising hundreds of millions of dollars to run campaign ads that are updates on the latest sports scores; that are filled with YouTube videos of sneezing pandas or yawning kittens. These super PACs are gearing up to run the most negative possible campaign ads–the sorts of ads that can change hearts and minds because they have no accountability, because they have no one’s name at the bottom line, because they feel free and are free to make the nastiest and most unfounded personal attacks.
Four years ago, at this point in the campaign cycle, just 9 percent–9 percent–of the political ads on TV were negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which has scored ads by their negativity or positivity. Just 9 percent.
What do you think that number is this year? At this stage, this still early stage in campaigning, 70 percent. Seventy percent of the ads have been negative, and it is only July. It is not even August.
At the same point in 2008, 3 percent for the ads came from outside groups like super PACs. This year, 60 percent have been paid by outside groups. Campaigns themselves have inevitably, as a result, taken on a more negative tone, a more caustic aspect. There is no doubt in my mind that the primary mission of most super PACs is to fund the sorts of ads that destroy candidates and campaigns, that tear them down, that contribute to the steady pollution and degradation of our political discourse. They are raising money to buy television ads that assault the fame and destroy the candidates they do not like.
This same study from the Wesleyan Media Project bears that out. It found that 86 percent of the ads the super PACs and interest groups have run during this cycle have been negative. Is there any wonder then that our campaigns, our politics, our culture has become more steadily divisive and on this floor more consistently divided?
There are no centrist super PACs. There are no (c)(4)s that are determined to fund a message about bringing America together. These super PACs are designed to divide us, and they are doing a great job.
At the end of the day, one of the questions we have to have for the citizens of America is, what does this mean for you? What does it mean to have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into negative ads, driving the outcome of elections at the State and Federal level that simply divide us? It means more partisanship. It means more rancor. It means less progress. It means fewer problems solved.
If the intentions of these super PACs, of these special (c)(4)s, were so positive, then why would they need to hide whom they were supporting? Why would they need to conceal the purposes of the ads they support?
Let me, if I might for a few moments, respond to some things I heard earlier today from Republicans while I was presiding and while I was watching in my office.
One of my Republican colleagues earlier today claimed the DISCLOSE Act does not apply to labor unions and suggested that this was a big wet kiss to organized labor from my side of the aisle. This suggestion was made by several in leadership. It is a ludicrous claim. Every provision in the DISCLOSE Act applies equally to covered organizations, corporations, business associations, membership organizations, and unions.
Why have a $10,000 threshold? To reduce the burden on all membership organizations of all kinds; the $10,000 threshold is enough to cover 93 percent of the money raised by these super PACs and thus does not needlessly burden national membership organizations, with thousands of members who contribute $25 or $50 or $100.
It is these handful of folks, who are contributing huge amounts of money, whose contributions we hope to expose to the sunshine, to make positive contributions to allowing voters to know who is contributing to whom and why.
One other thought I want to add to tonight’s debate is, as the Africa Subcommittee chair on the Foreign Relations Committee, I often have the opportunity to hear from and meet with legislators and heads of state from Africa who come to meet with us here in Washington. They come to the United States to listen to us and to hear from us how our democracy functions, because for much of the world we are considered the gold standard of how to run free, fair, and open elections, of how to deliberate as an open and positive body, of how to be accountable to and serve the people of the United States.
We already have some challenges making progress, listening to each other, and getting past the partisan divide. But if we already have challenges, if the folks listening wonder whether the Senate of the United States listens to our citizens enough, just wait until another billion dollars of secretive special interest money pours into our campaigns.
In my view, one of the things we can hold up to the rest of the world is that we have clean, fair elections. This decision by this Supreme Court, in Citizens United, threatens that at its very core. This flood of money suggests that what is our greatest accomplishment in many ways as a nation is at very real risk. We cannot, in my view, lose the moral high ground of being a country that has fought so hard for so long to be a place where every person–every real person–has an equal vote and an equal right to be heard.
The unfortunate reality is we are not going to be able to amend the Constitution to repeal the Citizens United decision this year. I wish we could. But it is not going to happen on that timeline. As we saw earlier today, this Senate is apparently not even willing to require the slightest bit of transparency and accountability by passing the DISCLOSE Act, as we should. Maybe we will get the votes tomorrow. Maybe after listening to this tonight, after hearing from us, our constituents will be moved to contact other Members of this body.
But I am concerned. I am concerned that the Congress is not going to be able to stem the massive influx of cash into our elections this year or this cycle. It may, in fact, be too late for that. There is a reason campaigns and super PACs fund these negative ads. They work. They are designed to go around your head and target your heart. They move you to vote on what you are afraid of, not what you aspire to. And they can be so highly effective.
I do not like negative ads. The Presiding Officer does not like negative ads. Our citizens and our constituents do not like negative ads. We still have a choice, though. We may not yet be able to amend the Constitution. We may not be able to persuade the other side to pass the DISCLOSE Act this time. But we can allow ourselves instead to say, we will not listen to these craven, destructive ads. We can change the channel. We can ignore the ads. We can learn about candidates and their records. We can vote from a place of power instead of fear. Each and every one of us, each and every citizen, can be more powerful than the Supreme Court, can be more powerful than the billionaires and corporations who are trying to sway our votes by deciding to be better with our politics, by deciding to listen past the smear campaigns and the negative attacks.
It is my hope we will be able someday to pass the DISCLOSE Act and to amend the Constitution. But until then, I am left with this: With the encouragement of my colleagues, with confidence in our citizens, and with optimism that somehow through this smear campaign of super PAC ads the truth of the American system will still be shown to the world.
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 15-3 on Thursday to advance bipartisan legislation cosponsored by U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) to protect seniors and persons with disabilities from neglect and financial exploitation by improving oversight and accountability for court-appointed guardians and conservators.
“When we entrust the interests of our most vulnerable seniors to guardians and conservators, we need to be sure that trust is well placed,” Senator Coons said. “There is no doubt that most court-appointed guardians are professional, diligent and respectful, but we cannot turn a blind eye to mounting reports about those who would take advantage of this trust for their own financial gain. This legislation will help increase accountability and oversight of those we trust with this important responsibility. I was proud that the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted the bill this week, and hope it will get a vote of the full Senate soon.”
The Guardian Accountability and Senior Protection Act, which was introduced by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), would provide support to states to implement programs to increase oversight of guardians and conservators. Specifically, the bill provides funding for state courts to assess the handling of proceedings relating to guardian and conservators, and then make the necessary improvements to their practices. The bill sets aside a portion of the funding for states seeking to implement or improve systems for conducting background checks on potential guardians and conservators. It also authorizes state courts to implement an electronic filing system in order to better monitor and audit conservatorships and guardianships.
A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified hundreds of allegations of physical abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation by guardians in 45 states and the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2010. The report reviewed 20 of these cases and found that guardians had stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained, $5.4 million from 158 incapacitated victims, many of whom were older adults.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) voiced his strong support Thursday for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2006 with 153 signatories and 116 ratifying parties, which does not include the United States. The convention was the focus of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday. Senator Coons chaired part of the hearing.
“The American people expect Congress to protect the fundamental rights of all people,” Senator Coons said. “The United States can and should demonstrate global leadership by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We’ve long been a leader on protecting rights for disabled persons, as demonstrated by the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which passed twenty-two years ago. I am proud to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in advocating for ratification of this convention, and urge the Senate to act expeditiously to ratify and demonstrate American leadership on disability rights throughout the world.”
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was written “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.” It sets broad goals of autonomy, equality, acceptance, and accessibility for individuals with disabilities, with signatories agreeing to “undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.” The convention requires that parties adopt “all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures” to achieve the goals of the agreement.
“Not only will ratification serve to solidify U.S. commitment to equal opportunity for all persons, but it will also promote access, mobility, and inclusion for disabled Americans abroad, especially our wounded veterans,” Senator Coons said. “Promoting the rights of disabled persons has historically garnered the support of all Americans, and I remain hopeful that the Senate can come together in the spirit of unity to protect dignity and human rights for all by ratifying this convention.”
Thursday’s hearing featured testimony from an array of witnesses, including U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). The second panel featured leaders from the departments of State and Justice. The third panel featured former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, former Justice Department official John Wodatch, the Heritage Foundation’s Steven Groves, Chancellor of Patrick Henry College Dr. Michael Farris, and retired Marine lieutenant John Lancaster, formerly of the National Council On Independent Living.
Below are excerpts from witness testimony, which can be viewed in full at www.foreign.senate.gov.
TOM HARKIN, CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
“By ratifying this convention, the United States will be reaffirming our commitment to our citizens with disabilities. Americans with disabilities, including disabled veterans, should be able to live, travel, study and work abroad with the same freedoms and access that they enjoy in the United States.”
JOHN MCCAIN, SENATOR, U.S. SENATE
“It’s not an accident that literally every veterans organization in the country supports this legislation…This treaty is probably more important today in the world, perhaps than it’s been the past.”
ROBERT DOLE, FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, U.S. SENATE
“Now is the time to reaffirm the common goals of equality, access, and inclusion for Americans with disabilities – both when those affected are in the United States and outside of our country’s borders. I urge you to support U.S. ratification of this important treaty.”
JUDITH HEUMANN, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE:
“Ratification is good for America and good for Americans. It will provide the United States with a critical platform from which to urge other countries to improve equality of individuals with disabilities, including Americans who travel or live abroad, and including children with disabilities, whose plight is particularly neglected in many parts of the world.”
EVE HILL, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
“With the ratification of the Disabilities Convention, we will greatly enhance our capacity to influence other countries to move towards the vigorous, effective standards we have set at home. In turn, as other countries move forward, American veterans, business people, retirees, students, tourists, active-duty military, and others will be able to enjoy the same kinds of accessibility and nondiscrimination overseas that they currently enjoy in the United States.”
RICHARD THORNBURGH, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF COUNCIL, K&L GATES, LLP:
“Ratification by this body would mark a major step forward in the effort to end discrimination and to promote the rights of as many as one billion men, women and children with disabilities around the world who seek vindication of their pre-eminent human rights in an ever-challenging world.”
JOHN WODATCH, FORMER CHIEF OF THE DISABILITY RIGHTS SECTION, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
“The time for Senate action to ratify this treaty is now…It is time for the United States to reposition itself as a world leader to help bring down these walls of exclusion for all nations around the globe and help make the world accessible for Americans with disabilities, including our veterans, and for American multinational businesses.”
JOHN LANCASTER, 1ST LT., U.S. MARINE CORPS (RET), RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON INDEPENDENT LIVING:
“In 2012, 22 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unacceptable that many Americans with disabilities cannot leave the borders of the United States without the fear of stigma, barriers, and denial of their rights…. I urge you, on behalf of 21 veterans service organizations and 165 disability organizations, to support ratification of this treaty so that we can participate and continue America’s noble history of leadership.”
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) participated in a roundtable discussion of ideas for protecting women’s access to contraception and family planning services on Wednesday. The meeting was hosted by the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee and featured more than a dozen leaders in women’s health, including Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Nancy Kennan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; and Alethea Smith-Withers, board chair of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
“All women should have the right to affordable, accessible reproductive health care,” Senator Coons said. “Sadly, many Republicans in Congress insist on creating harmful barriers to keep women from accessing much-needed services. Today’s meeting allowed for a productive discussion with leaders of women’s health care on how we can move forward to continue to advocate for these critical family planning services.”
The hour-long discussion focused on recent destructive initiatives taken by Republicans to block women from accessing basic reproductive health care. In particular, Cecile Richards and Nancy Keenan discussed the important role the Affordable Care Act has played in improving and expanding access to important health services for women, including requiring health insurance plans to cover preventive services such as mammograms and cervical cancer screenings with no deductible or co-pay, and the need to ensure its full implementation. Other participants noted the need to continue to maintaining funding for the Title X program, which supports critical health services to women across the country. House Republicans have fought to eliminate funding for this program, and they have introduced more than 30 bills that would restrict a woman’s access to reductive health care.
Senator Coons has been committed to advancing women’s health. He has voted against legislation that would have allowed employers to take away preventive health care coverage from millions of women, supported legislation that would prevent women in the military from being denied access to certain health care services, and has consistently urged members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to maintain a commitment to funding the Title X program.
In March, Senator Coons attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Wilmington Veterans Affairs Medical Center that focuses on providing health care tailored to meeting the needs of female veterans, including gynecological care; initial maternity and infertility evaluation and treatment; menopausal and osteoporosis care; women’s health cancer screening; and military sexual trauma.
To download the pictures posted above, click here.
WASHINGTON – Today, Sens. Tom Carper, Chris Coons and Rep. John Carney (all D-Del.) announced more than $7 million in homeland security grants to strengthen Delaware’s ability to prevent, respond to and recover from natural and man-made emergencies and other disasters. The FY 2012 awards to the state are part of more than $1.3 billion in preparedness grant awards from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Specifically, Delaware received:
State Homeland Security Program:$2.8 million to support the implementation of state homeland security strategies to build and strengthen preparedness capabilities at all levels.
Emergency Management Performance Grants: $3.13 million to assist state and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities.
Port Security Grant Program:$1.14 million to help protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism.
“While we have made important strides in improving our homeland security and emergency response efforts, local, state and federal officials must continue to work together and remain vigilant to keep Delawareans safe,” said Senator Carper. “These federal grants will support Delaware’s ongoing efforts to employ the best strategies and tools possible to protect lives and property in the event of an emergency, and to keep disasters from happening in the first place. I appreciate the Administration’s forward-thinking approach to nationwide preparedness and I look forward to working with the Department of Homeland Security and state officials to ensure that these important measures are properly implemented.”
“The reality of living in a post-9/11 world is that we must remain vigilant when it comes to strengthening our emergency preparedness,” said Senator Chris Coons. “Natural disasters and man-made emergencies require our first responders to have the equipment, tools and training to be able to respond at a moment’s notice. Strides have been made over the last decade in emergency response efforts, and this Department of Homeland Security funding will help us protect our communities here in Delaware and across the nation.”
“There is nothing more important than ensuring that Delawareans remain safe and secure in the event of an emergency,” said Congressman Carney. “This funding will allow Delaware law enforcement and the Department of Safety and Homeland Security to put in place best practices for handling disaster situations, as well as take every possible precaution to prevent emergencies from happening. This preparation helps save lives and protects what is most important to us.”
Thegrants awarded are in support of the National Preparedness Goal (NPG), which was established by President Obama in 2011. The NPG sets the vision for nationwide preparedness and identifies the core capabilities and targets necessary to achieve preparedness across five mission areas laid out under Presidential Policy Directive 8: prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus, led a briefing on Tuesday for members of Congress and their staffs to provide an on-the-ground status update on law enforcement information-sharing initiatives. The event, “Shared Strength: A Status Update on Law Enforcement Information-Sharing Initiatives,” was sponsored by the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus and featured speakers from local and national law enforcement agencies, including the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System’s executive director, Peggy Bell.
“Protecting our communities from dangerous threats works best when law enforcement agencies work together,” Senator Coons said. “Information-sharing has been an especially critical piece of our public safety strategy since September 11, when we learned that our local, state, and national agencies were unable to communicate during emergencies in the ways they needed to. Our agencies have made great strides since then in breaking down silos and allowing for a more efficient flow of communication, and I wanted to share that progress with my colleagues with this event. What was clear from today’s briefing is that work still needs to be done, however, to improve the communication and coordination between agencies. We must continue work to ensure that all agencies are properly equipped with up-to-date technologies and practices to help them save lives and protect the public’s safety.”
More than 60 people attended Tuesday’s event in the Capitol Visitors Center. Senator Coons delivered keynote remarks at the briefing, and was followed by Peggy Bell, executive director of the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System; Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition; Gary MacNamara, chief of police in Fairfield Connecticut; and Tim Richardson, senior legislative liaison for the Fraternal Order of Police.
“Delaware law enforcement went from reporting crime from pen and paper to capturing data at the source,” Peggy Bell, executive director of Delaware Criminal Justice Information System, said. “Data capture is enhanced and shared through the entire justice process and automatically shared with authorized criminal justice agencies. Today’s streamline reporting makes notices of arrests of those in trusted positions readily available to safe guard Delaware’s citizens. Computer information has become a vital part of law enforcement communication.”
The briefing covered a wide range of issues, including the impact of task forces, fusion centers, Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS), National Criminal History Improvement Program and other programs to advance law enforcement priorities and officer safety.
The RISS program is a nationwide information sharing and investigative support program that serves thousands of local, state, federal, and tribal law enforcement and public safety agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand. RISS is a valuable, cost-effective program that provides support efforts to combat violent and organized crime, as well as drug and gang activity, terrorism and human trafficking. The success of RISS has led to an increased demand from jurisdictions around the country to provide the funding necessary to support these organizations. RISS provides critical products and services to law enforcement member organizations, including pooled equipment, intelligence briefings, trainings and analytical support.
Senator Coons chaired a field hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in Wilmington, Delaware, in June 2011 that focused on the success Delaware’s local law enforcement agencies have had with state and federal agencies in sharing intelligence to effectively improve policing and make our streets safer.
The Senate Law Enforcement Caucus educates and informs Members and staff about the policies, programs, and initiatives that enhance public safety and strengthen our criminal justice system. In the midst of shrinking budgets, law enforcement agencies all across the country continue to work tirelessly to keep our communities and families safe.
WASHINGTON – The Senate on Tuesday advanced a bill containing another key provision of the American Growth, Recovery, Empowerment and Entrepreneurship (AGREE) Act introduced by U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in November. TheSenate voted 80-14 to proceed to the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, setting it up for possible final passage on Thursday. If passed, it would be the third provision from the AGREE Act that has been enacted this year.
“Helping America’s small businesses grow so they can create jobs and strengthen our communities is an idea that everyone can agree on,” Senator Coons said. “The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act invests in America’s job-creating small businesses, and I’m glad that Senator Rubio and I were able to contribute to it with another common-sense idea from the AGREE Act. One hundred percent bonus depreciation is a proven approach for helping small businesses invest in new equipment to expand their operations, and I’m glad an extension of this policy is being considered this week.”
The bill, S.2237, of which Senator Coons is also a cosponsor, wouldextend 100 percent bonus depreciation for certain property acquired and placed in service before the end of the year. This was a key piece of the AGREE Act and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the past. It was also part of President Obama’s “Startup America Legislative Agenda” in January. The Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act being considered now also offers small businesses a 10 percent tax credit on new workers or wage increases.