Hatch Bill Targeting Prescription Drug Abuse Heads to President’s Desk for Signature
“Prescription drug abuse is a big problem in Utah. A recent study found that our state ranks fifth in the nation in drug overdose deaths. That’s why I’m so glad Congress has passed the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act.”
Washington, D.C.— Yesterday the House of Representatives passed legislation that will help ensure that prescription drugs get to the patients who need them and are not abused for improper purposes. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and sponsor of the bipartisan Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, applauded the move.
Prescription drug abuse is a big problem in Utah. A recent study found that our state ranks fifth in the nation in drug overdose deaths. That’s why I’m so glad Congress has passed the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act to encourage greater collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector in fighting prescription drug abuse. This bill will motivate drug manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies to step up efforts to prevent diversion of drugs for improper purposes. At the same time, it will put in place safeguards to ensure that patients who truly need medications are able to get them. I’m looking forward to the President signing this important bill into law.
Currently, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not make clear which factors the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should consider when reviewing an application to manufacture or distribute prescription drugs. Hatch’s legislation directs the DEA to use findings that Congress compiled while drafting the CSA to define those factors. The bill also defines the circumstances under which the Attorney General can suspend a company’s registration without a court proceeding. Finally, it allows companies that violate the CSA an opportunity to work with the DEA to correct the violation before having their registration revoked.
A summary of the bill’s key provisions can be found here.
-------------------------
Hatch Announces Tim Cook Visit to Utah
Washington, D.C.— As the President pro tem of the U.S. Senate and the Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, Senator Hatch has worked hard to serve as both an advocate and a resource for Utah’s growing technology sector.
For more than a decade, Senator Hatch has brought some of the world’s top tech luminaries to Utah to address the Utah Technology Council’s Hall of Fame event, which provides opportunities for Utah’s growing companies to learn from and network with the most successful leaders in their industry. This year, Apple President and CEO Tim Cook has accepted Senator Hatch’s invitation to speak at the Utah Technology Council’s Hall of Fame event on September 30th.
“I’m excited to welcome Tim Cook to Utah this fall. Perhaps more than anyone else, Tim and Apple are in the middle of the biggest tech issues of the day, including user privacy, encryption, and intellectual property rights protections. The talented individuals and innovative companies that make up Utah’s Silicon Slopes will have a unique opportunity to hear from one of the tech industry’s most admired leaders.”
(Video Announcement—Via YouTube)
Senator Hatch and Tim Cook in Washington, December 2014
(Click here to access a high quality version of this photo)
Past UTC Keynotes
2006—Steve Ballmer, President and CEO, Microsoft
2007—Paul Otellini, President and CEO, Intel
2008—Jerry Yang, Co-Founder and CEO, Yahoo
2009—Eric Schmidt, President and CEO, Google
2010—John Chambers, CEO and Executive Chairman, Cisco
2011—Mark Hurd, President and CEO, Oracle
2012—Jeff Bezos, President and CEO, Amazon.com
2013—Shantanu Narayen, Chairman and CEO, Adobe Systems, Inc.
2014—Marc Benioff, Chairman and CEO, Salesforce.com
2015—Jeff Weiner, Chairman and CEO, LinkedIn
2016—Tim Cook, Chairman and CEO, Apple
Statements of Support from Utah Businesses
Richard R. Nelson, President and CEO, Utah Technology Council
“There’s no member of Congress who has done more for advancing innovation in this country and Utah than Senator Orrin Hatch. We are thrilled that Tim Cook has accepted his invitation to come to Utah.”
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
--------------------------
Democrats' Deceptions About High Court Vacancy
By Orrin Hatch
In the debate over the Supreme Court vacancy, Senate Republicans have taken a principled stand to wait until after the election to consider a nominee. In response, Democrats and their liberal allies have deployed a series of disingenuous arguments to convince Americans that, by considering a nominee after the election, the Senate is not doing its job.
In their latest attempt to deceive voters, progressives claim that the Supreme Court cannot function properly with fewer than nine justices on the bench. Many Democrats have suggested that the Senate’s decision will leave an unprecedented vacancy that will prevent the judicial branch from carrying out its constitutional duties.
This argument would be compelling if it weren’t completely unsubstantiated and ignorant of the Supreme Court’s history. In no way will the current vacancy inhibit the Court from fulfilling its most fundamental responsibilities.
Those who argue the Supreme Court needs nine justices to hear a case are either ignoring the truth or deliberately distorting the facts to fit liberal talking points. Nothing in our Constitution specifies the number of justices that should serve on the Supreme Court. Rather, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the structure of the courts, including the number of judges that serve on each court. These numbers have fluctuated throughout history, according to the best judgment of Congress.
For example, at the beginning of our Republic, only six justices served on the Supreme Court. In the decades that followed, Congress passed various acts to change this number. For many years, there were only seven Supreme Court justices; during the Civil War, there were as many as 10. It wasn’t until Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 that the number of justices was fixed at nine. The fact that the Supreme Court issued thousands of decisions over many decades with six, seven, and even 10 justices on the bench undermines any suggestion that the Supreme Court can only function with nine members.
Just as disingenuous is the notion that an even number of justices will disrupt the proceedings of the Supreme Court by resulting in an inordinate number of split 4-4 decisions. Democrats who peddle this fiction willfully neglect the fact that the Supreme Court has consisted of an even number of justices at numerous times throughout its history, including when it was first established. They also ignore that the Court has well-established rules for dealing with tie decisions.
Consider Justice Robert Jackson’s leave of absence to serve in the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. His hiatus left the Supreme Court with only eight justices on the bench for an entire year. But having an even number of justices in no way inhibited the Court’s business. As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote, Jackson’s absence did not “sacrific[e] a single interest of importance” because the Supreme Court could simply reschedule any cases that resulted in split decisions.
When tie votes occur today, the Supreme Court has the same ability to reargue cases at a later date or simply let the opinion of the lower court stand. But rarely is either option necessary because ties are so uncommon. That’s because the vast majority of the Court’s decisions are either unanimous or split along non-ideological lines. This holds true even for some of the most high-profile, controversial cases. For example, after Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from Fisher v. University of Texas—a 2013 affirmative action case with far-reaching implications for college admissions—the Supreme Court still reached a near-unanimous decision with only eight justices.
While Democrats would have us believe that an even number of justices hamstrings the Court and results in myriad split decisions, the statistics paint a different picture. Since I was first elected to the Senate nearly four decades ago, the Supreme Court has heard more than 500 cases with only eight justices—either due to recusal or vacancy. Less than seven percent of these cases resulted in a tie.
In such extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court simply rescheduled cases or let the lower court opinions stand, allowing the legal process to continue unabated. Contrary to the progressive narrative, the judicial branch does not come to a standstill when there are only eight justices; it continues to perform its constitutional duties without interruption. Perhaps this is why Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Samuel Alito—justices of very different perspectives—both recently affirmed that the Supreme Court will continue to function effectively during the current vacancy.
In addition to arguing that the Supreme Court cannot function with fewer than nine justices, President Obama and his supporters have repeatedly declared that the Senate’s decision to wait until after the election to consider a nominee could result in the longest vacancy in history—one that could stymie the work of the Supreme Court. On this particular point, history again stands between liberal arguments and the truth.
The current Court vacancy is unlikely to last longer than a year. Yet throughout history, numerous vacancies have stretched for longer periods of time. For example, the seat vacated by Justice Abe Fortas in 1969 remained empty for nearly 400 days, and numerous vacancies in the 1800s sat open for more than two years. It is worth noting that in none of these cases was the Court unable to function without a full contingent of justices.
These historical precedents discredit the left’s assertion that the Senate’s action will lead to an unprecedented vacancy that will handicap the Court. Democrats who make this argument might have the media on their side, but they certainly don’t have the facts.
I call on my progressive colleagues to be honest with the American people: The Senate’s determination to wait until after the election to consider a nominee will in no way impede the business of the judicial branch. If anything, this decision will uphold the integrity of the Supreme Court by keeping politics out of the confirmation process.
Hatch is a Republican Senator from Utah.
------------------------------------------
Hatch Statement on United States v. Texas Oral Arguments
Washington, D.C.—The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today for United States v. Texas, a legal challenge to President Obama’s executive actions that aim to grant legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the senior Republican in the U.S. Senate and a longtime member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged the Court to strike down the President’s unconstitutional policy.
“Today’s oral arguments in United States v. Texas will shine light on the executive branch’s efforts to circumvent Congress,” Hatch said. “President Obama’s executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government. I joined the amicus brief in support of the States’ challenge to the President’s overreach on immigration because the Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the President, who has attempted nonetheless to rewrite the law unilaterally. I applaud the Court for its willingness to consider this case and hope the Justices will hold the Obama administration accountable to the law and to the Constitution.”
The amicus brief, which Senator Hatch signed, stated:
“Given that the Executive has asserted that the acts challenged here are not even subject to judicial review, what is at stake in this matter is nothing less than an effort to supplant Congress’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8. Such an action stands in stark contravention to federal law and to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.”
“Congress has never expressly approved the use of the Executive’s ability to grant deferred action as a mechanism for circumventing policy differences between the political branches of the federal government.”
“By effectively suspending the enforcement of our immigration laws against millions of aliens in the United States, and moreover by granting those foreign nationals benefits to which they are not lawfully entitled, DAPA violates the letter and spirit of the federal immigration law that the Executive is constitutionally obligated to enforce.”
Senator Hatch also delivered a speech in January when the Supreme Court announced their decision to review President Obama’s executive orders.
He also delivered a speech in late 2014 when President Obama announced his executive order.
