Hatch Reacts to Federal Court’s Net Neutrality Decision
Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, issued the following statement on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision to uphold the legality of the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality policy:
“Today’s court decision to uphold the FCC’s Open Internet Order is just one procedural step in a long and complicated legal process. As a strong advocate for a free and open Internet, I believe that Congress —not unelected bureaucrats—should play the leading role in determining the future of the Internet. In addition to violating the Constitution’s separation of powers and abusing its rulemaking authority, the FCC’s misguided attempt to regulate the Internet will lead to less competition, slower speeds, higher prices, and less innovation for the broadband Internet services industry.”
------------------------
“For Bears Ears, Support Local Solutions, Not Federal Overreach”
By Senator Orrin G. Hatch
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/3987997-155/hatch-a-bears-ears-monument-would
Anyone who has witnessed the pristine perfection of a mountain lake or the sublime desolation of a sandstone desert can attest to the diversity and grandeur of Utah’s natural landscapes. This month, I had the opportunity to see once again the majesty of our lands up close as I toured Utah’s Mighty Five National Parks in commemoration of the National Park Service’s 100th anniversary. My visit to southern Utah reaffirmed my commitment to preserving our state’s natural treasures while ensuring that Utahns have a voice in the management of our lands.
Each year, the number of tourists visiting Utah’s national parks grows, and it grows for good reason: The Mighty Five are home to some of the best recreational opportunities in the world. As I hiked the Narrows with Superintendent Jeff Bradybaugh in Zion, I was reminded why our state is widely regarded as an outdoorsman’s paradise. As I toured Capitol Reef’s abundant fruit orchards with Superintendent Leah McGinnis, I was stunned by the variety of Utah’s many landscapes. And as I walked through Canyonlands and took in the scenery at Arches and Bryce Canyon, I was left breathless by some of the most panoramic views I have ever seen.
On this trip, I was also able to visit with families across southern and eastern Utah to discuss issues of particular concern to our rural residents, including access to quality healthcare. Many people living in remote areas of Utah have difficulty finding adequate care because they live so far away from the nearest hospital. To address this problem, I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our rural communities have greater access to high quality medical services. My legislative efforts in Congress have benefitted medical facilities such as Garfield Memorial Hospital in Panguitch and the Kazan Memorial Clinic in Escalante—two exemplary rural health centers. During my trip, I was able to tour both hospitals, where I talked to local residents who told me just how vital these centers are to the health of their family and loved ones.
Another issue of pressing concern to Utahns—and indeed, to many Americans throughout the Mountain West—is the ongoing debate over management of federal lands. I am wholly committed to protecting our state’s natural wonders, including national parks like the Mighty Five. But I believe Utahns should have a say in how we protect our public lands.
During my journey, I visited Bears Ears, the site of a proposed national monument. The area surrounding the stunning Bears Ears formation is, without a doubt, a beautiful part of our state, rich with history and cultural significance. But these are far from the only features of the area that matter to those in eastern Utah who have lived on this land for generations and who rely on its resources for their livelihoods.
A unilateral designation by President Obama of a national monument around Bears Ears would represent federal overreach. It would cut out of the decision-making process the local communities that know the land best. And in the single stroke of a pen, it would put Washington bureaucrats in a position to impose onerous burdens over a vast 1.9 million acres, severely curtailing the way of life of so many of our fellow Utahns.
Out-of-state interests advocating for unilateral presidential action argue that a monument designation is the only means of protecting the Bears Ears area. But this argument is plainly false. All of us want to ensure that Bears Ears is protected not just for today’s Utahns, but also for generations to come. Where we differ is how best to accomplish this goal.
Utah’s elected leaders in Congress firmly believe we need a more collaborative approach to land management that will provide the kind of flexibility that past monument designations have ignored. For the last several years, our state’s congressional delegation, under the leadership of House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop and Congressman Jason Chaffetz, have worked to develop a comprehensive land-use proposal for our public lands in eastern Utah. This Public Lands Initiative would conserve four times as much land as the proposed monument designation and would carefully tailor the protections for each individual tract of land, rather than prescribing an inefficient and burdensome one-size-fits-all monument designation.
I’m encouraged by the tremendous support we have received from state and local leaders, members of the Navajo Tribe, ranchers, outdoorsmen, and all of the various Utah stakeholders that know best how to manage the land. In light of this broad-based support, I urge the Obama administration to partner with us to support this important Initiative that will not only protect Utah’s natural wonders, but also empower those Utahns who depend on our public lands.
-------------------------
Myth Vs. Fact: How Congress is working to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists
Myth: In December, Senator Hatch and his Republican colleagues rejected all efforts to prevent terror suspects from purchasing firearms.
Fact: Senator Hatch rejected a political “show vote” on an amendment from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California that would have taken away a basic civil liberty without due process from anyone included on a secret government watch list, a list that is deliberately over-inclusive and has suffered from a number of high-profile errors, including law-abiding Americans who travel near dangerous areas. While intelligence-gathering is a complex but crucial component of our national security efforts, particularly in the wake of recent attacks on American soil, denying fundamental Second Amendment rights based on a reasonable belief that an individual “may use a firearm in connection with terrorism” without any way of rectifying cases of mistaken inclusion is not the appropriate response.
As the longest-serving Republican member in the history of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Hatch recognizes the important role our intelligence-gathering capabilities play in stopping terrorism. He believes we need to take effective, responsible steps to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, which is why he supported an alternative amendment offered by Senator John Cornyn of Texas that would prevent actual terrorists from acquiring firearms while still affording constitutional due process. This amendment would have given federal authorities authority to stop a firearm transfer for 72 hours to a person whom they believe may be connected with terror in order to file an emergency petition for a court to prohibit the transfer. The individual in question would be notified and be able to contest the petition with the assistance of legal counsel.
There are a number of crucial differences between the two amendments. First is the question of who has the power to take away an individual’s constitutional rights. The Feinstein amendment gives that power to officials in the Justice Department, while the Cornyn amendment gives that power to an independent federal judge. Second is the standard of proof. The Feinstein Amendment would allow the Attorney General to suspend gun sales for anyone she “reasonably believes” may “use a firearm in connection with terrorism,” while the Cornyn amendment would give a federal judge authority to prohibit sales upon showing of “probable cause” that an individual “has committed or will commit an act of terrorism.” Third is an individual's opportunity to contest a mistaken denial of rights. The Feinstein amendment would offer no opportunity for an individual to contest a mistaken placement on the terror watch list, while the Cornyn amendment would offer the opportunity to contest the court’s ruling if it was made in error.
Provision
Feinstein Amendment
Cornyn Amendment
Who decides?
Attorney General
Federal judge
Standard of proof?
“reasonably believes…may use a firearm in connection with terrorism”
“probable cause to believe…has committed or will commit an act of terrorism”
Individual opportunity to contest?
NO
YES
No one wants to see dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists. Senator Hatch, like every other Republican senator, enthusiastically supported legislation to prevent that outcome. The amendment Senator Hatch supported would give law enforcement authorities the power to keep us safe without wrongfully depriving law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. As the political debate unfolds on this issue, Senator Hatch will continue to do everything within his power to ensure public safety while protecting our liberties.
------------------------
Hatch introduces privacy, intellectual property, and criminal justice amendments to key funding bill
Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, senior member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered six amendments to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2578), related to Intellectual Property, Guns, Privacy, and Criminal Justice Reform.
“It’s great to see the Senate working again under an open amendment process,” Hatch said. “I am committed to finding any opportunity to push forward some of my most important priorities for Utah and the nation.”
Sense of Congress with respect to willful infringement in patent cases (Amendment No. 4748)
On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard for determining when a district court may award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases.
The Hatch Sense of Congress underscores that the two-part test for awarding enhanced damages under Section 284 of title 35, United States Code, as articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), has governed and continues to govern the enhanced damages analysis for patent infringement cases and that this intent of Congress should be considered in any decisions interpreting that section.
Sense of Congress with respect to international data privacy (Amendment No. 4747)
Modernizing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to better reflect the truly global nature of current technology will better serve the interests of law enforcement, both here and abroad; protect individual privacy; and promote innovation and the free flow of information.
The Hatch Sense of Congress directs the federal government to safeguard data throughout the world from unauthorized access by law enforcement agencies.
Ensuring Accountability for Federal Dollars Given to Pretrial Release Agencies (Amendment No. 4743)
According to a 2007 report, defendants released through government-administered pretrial release programs fail to appear at higher rates than defendants released on commercial bail. Many pretrial release agencies receive federal funds but are not required to report to the Department of Justice such basic information as the names of releasees, their criminal history, and whether they appeared for trial. This lack of accountability means that federal dollars are being used to release potentially dangerous individuals back onto the streets without effective oversight.
This amendment would rectify that situation by requiring pretrial release agencies receiving federal funds to report to the Department of Justice information regarding releasees’ names, criminal history, and failure(s) to appear.
Preventing Bureaucrats in the Social Security Administration from Stripping Second Amendment Rights (Amendment No. 4744)
The Obama administration recently issued a proposed rule that would give the Commissioner of Social Security authority to deem individuals “mental defectives” so that they cannot purchase or possess a firearm. Federal law prohibits a person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” from receiving or possessing a firearm. Under the administration’s proposed rule, the Commissioner of Social Security would be able to deem a person a mental defective if the person meets certain criteria, including having a diagnosed mental disorder and receiving Social Security disability benefits through a representative payee. The list of qualifying “mental disorders” ranges from intellectual disability to anxiety-related disorders to autism. At no point prior to the Commissioner’s determination would the person have an opportunity to contest his or her suitability to possess a firearm, although the person could seek to have the determination overturned after the fact.
This amendment would cut off the administration’s ability to implement this new rule. It would bar bureaucrats in the Social Security Administration—an agency with no law enforcement function and that was never intended to play a role in federal firearms policy—from stripping law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Strengthening Criminal Intent Protections and Preventing Unjust Prosecution (Amendment No. 4745 & Amendment No. 4746)
Criminal intent protections, also called “mens rea requirements,” are an important part of our criminal laws. They prevent individuals from being sent to jail for unwittingly or accidentally breaking the law. Unfortunately, in recent years Congress and federal agencies have created hundreds of new criminal laws that fail to specify the level of intent required for conviction. This leaves hard-working Americans vulnerable to prosecution and conviction even though they acted without criminal intent.
These two amendments address this problem by: (a) preventing government lawyers from prosecuting individuals for strict liability crimes (crimes that require no proof of criminal intent) unless it’s clear Congress actually intended the crime to be strict liability; and (b) expressing Congress’s view that if a criminal law lacks an intent requirement, a court should read a default intent standard into the law unless it’s clear Congress intended the law to be strict liability.
###
Rapid DNA Bill Clears Senate
WASHINGTON—Today the Senate unanimously approved legislation to speed processing of DNA samples and help law enforcement more quickly solve crimes. The bipartisan Rapid DNA Act, sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., and Kristin Gillibrand D-N.Y., updates our nation’s DNA laws to allow properly trained police officers in booking stations and other locations to upload DNA samples to the FBI’s CODIS database so that officers can determine more quickly whether a suspect in custody is connected to a crime or is innocent. The bill also contains important quality assurance protections to safeguard the integrity of the FBI’s database.
Law enforcement leaders across the nation have praised the bill, including FBI Director James Comey, who told the Senate last December that the authority in the bill would “change the world in a very, very exciting way” by allowing law enforcement “to know instantly—or near instantly—whether [a] person is the rapist who’s been on the loose in a particular community before they’re released on bail and get away, or to clear somebody, to show that they’re [innocent].”
“I’m pleased that the Senate has overwhelmingly approved this step towards smarter law enforcement and enabling officials to make faster, better-informed decisions about whether individuals in custody should be held or released,” Senator Hatch said. “This legislation will help keep innocent people out of jail and dangerous criminals off the streets.”
“When an individual is arrested, it can often take months to process their DNA sample to determine whether their DNA profiles match other crimes,” Senator Feinstein said. “The bill will address this delay by requiring the FBI to issue guidelines for local jurisdictions to use standardized Rapid DNA technology. This technology will reduce processing time from months to hours, allowing the police to quickly advance investigations and protect the public.”
“I’m very pleased that our Rapid DNA legislation made it through the Senate,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. “Rapid DNA technology would give law enforcement the ability to identify suspects of violent crimes more accurately and more quickly, it would help us reduce our DNA backlogs, and it would better protect innocent men and women from being wrongfully accused of crimes. I urge the House to vote on this bill as soon as they can, so we can send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.”
For a one-pager on the bill, click here.
-------------------------------------
HATCH INTRODUCES BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE RESEARCH ON THE MEDICAL VALUE OF MARIJUANA
MEDS Act Would Eliminate Obstacles That Make it Difficult for Researchers to Conduct Legitimate Medical Research
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the Marijuana Effective Drug Studies (MEDS) Act of 2016, a bipartisan bill that would make it easier for researchers to conduct clinical studies on the medical benefits of marijuana. Similar legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), and Sam Farr (D-Calif.).
"While many patients have high hopes for the medical benefits of marijuana, further clinical research is needed to inform the decisions of policymakers regarding access to marijuana,” said Senator Hatch. “In my home state of Utah, for instance, debates earlier this year on whether to expand access to marijuana for medical purposes highlighted the need for improved scientific research. This bill makes targeted changes to the Controlled Substances Act to address specific barriers that encumber medical researchers requesting approval of marijuana research protocols or seeking plant strains for clinical studies. This joint legislative effort between the House and Senate will eliminate redundancies in the regulatory process and enable needed research to better understand the potential medical uses of marijuana."
“The medical community agrees that we need more research to learn about marijuana’s potential health benefits, but our federal laws today are standing in the way of that inquiry,” said Senator Schatz. “The MEDS Act will remove excessive barriers that make it difficult for researchers to study the effectiveness and safety of marijuana, and hopefully, give patients more treatment options.”
“When it comes to our nation’s efforts to cure diseases and improve the quality of life for people suffering from ailments, burdensome government regulations shouldn’t be an impediment to legitimate and responsible medical research,” said Senator Tillis. “The MEDS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan effort to remove unnecessary barriers that will give scientists the ability to study the biochemical processes, impact, dosing, risks and possible benefits of cannabidiol and other components of the marijuana plant.”
“When it comes to Americans’ health and well-being, our public policy should be based on scientific research – not outdated assumptions,” said Senator Coons. “Dozens of states across the country, including my home state of Delaware, have shown that medical marijuana laws can be implemented safely and effectively. With more and more states across the country considering similar policies — an evolution backed by changing public opinion — federal barriers to conducting medical research simply make no sense. When it comes to public health and safety, the federal government should be promoting policies that seek new information and understanding – not standing in the way of science.”
Marijuana has shown promise for treating a wide range of diseases and disorders. Yet there is limited data on the benefits and risks of marijuana as a possible medication, in large part because of federal barriers that inhibit scientific and clinical research. As a result, millions of Americans are utilizing marijuana for medical purposes without proper quality control standards or scientific guidance as to the drug's effectiveness, safety, dosing, or method of administration. The MEDS Act promotes scientific research and mitigates a significant public health risk by doing the following:
Eliminating the frequently imposed DEA requirement that marijuana be kept in bolted safes—a requirement not possible in many research and clinical settings—and codifying current DEA regulations that allow marijuana to be stored in securely locked, substantially constructed cabinets.
The MEDS Act is supported by the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Society of Addiction Medicine, American Preventive Medical Association, American Pain Society, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, Child Neurology Foundation, Child Neurology Society, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and Smart Approaches to Marijuana.
To read the full text of the MEDS Act of 2016, click here.
For a one-page summary of the bill, click here.
In December, FBI Director James Comey praised the bill in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. You can find that video here, text of the exchange here.
###
