Hatch, Coons, Heller Introduce Bipartisan International Communications Privacy Act
Washington, D.C.—Today Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chris Coons, D-Del., and Dean Heller, R-Nev., introduced the International Communications Privacy Act—a bipartisan bill that will clarify U.S. law enforcement’s ability to obtain electronic communications around the world.
“It is past time for Congress to modernize the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” Senator Hatch said. “As we do so, lawmakers must not ignore the pressing issue of international data privacy and the need for Congress to establish a legal framework for accessing extraterritorial communications. The global reach of government warrant authority has significant implications for multinational businesses and their customers. The International Communications Privacy Act aids law enforcement while safeguarding consumer privacy, striking a much-needed balance in today’s data-driven economy.”
"In an increasingly globalized world, protecting data stored abroad is critical to our country's ability to compete in the global economy," said Senator Coons. "Just like law enforcement agencies should be required to get a warrant before accessing the content of Americans’ communications within our borders, processes for accessing content located abroad should also comply with the law. This common-sense bill will protect our data across borders, and encourage fair treatment by our international partners."
“The world is becoming more dependent on broadband internet by the minute,” Senator Heller said. “As this technological necessity continues to expand its role in our society, it is imperative the guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens are balanced against the ability for law enforcement to do its job. I’m proud to join Senators Hatch and Coons to achieve this goal.”
Background
The International Communications Privacy Act (ICPA) creates a legal framework that clarifies the ability of law enforcement to obtain electronic communication of U.S. citizens, no matter where the person or the communications are located. It also provides for law enforcement to obtain communications of foreign citizens in limited circumstances, consistent with international law.
ICPA Overview –
----------------------------------
Hatch Comments on Meeting with Judge Merrick Garland
Washington—U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee’s longest-serving current member, released the following statement on his upcoming meeting with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland:
“Merrick Garland is an honorable public servant who deserves our respect. We have been friends for nearly two decades, and I look forward to visiting with him today. Despite my personal affection for Merrick, I remain convinced that the right way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct a confirmation process after this contentious presidential election season is over. Doing so is the proper course to ensure a constructive process for a nominee and to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court.”
The Senate has never allowed a term-limited President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy this late in his term. This is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting for the next President. In the previous two instances, in 1956 and 1968, the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the year after the presidential election. In fact, the only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after voting began in a presidential election year was in 1916, and that vacancy only arose in very unique circumstances when Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Court to run against the incumbent president.
Senator Hatch has previously laid out a detailed argument for filling the current vacancy after the election season is over:
Hatch in the New York Times: Let Voters Decide the Court’s Future
Hatch in USA Today: My advice to Senate Democrats
Hatch in Time: Senate Should Not Hold Hearings for Obama SCOTUS Nominee
Hatch in Bloomberg View: Senate's Job Is to Protect the Supreme Court
Hatch in Time: Democrats are SCOTUS Hypocrites
Hatch in the Deseret News: Doing Our Duty with the Supreme Court Nomination
Hatch in the Salt Lake Tribune: Senate has prerogative and precedent to deny Garland a confirmation process
Hatch in Bloomberg View: Senate's Job Is to Protect the Supreme Court
Hatch in Time: Democrats are SCOTUS Hypocrites
Release: Hatch Statement on the Passing of Justice Scalia
Release: Hatch statement on the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
Release: Speech: Hatch Speaks on Garland Nomination, Reaffirms Need to Defer Consideration
Release: Senator Hatch Makes the Case for Waiting to Fill Scalia’s Seat
Release: Hatch Speaks on Supreme Court Confirmations at Kennedy Institute Event
Release: Hatch: “Democrats are peddling false claims about the Constitution and the Supreme Court vacancy”
Release: Vice President Biden’s Speech on Supreme Court Vacancy Rewrites History
Release: Hatch Fights Misconceptions, Hypocrisy on Supreme Court Vacancy
Release: In Judiciary Meeting, Hatch Challenges “Absurd Claims”
Release: Hatch: “Some are paying very little attention to the Constitution”
Release: Democrats' Deceptions About High Court Vacancy
Release: Hatch: Keep Election-Year Political Theater Out Of Confirmation Process
Memorandum: The Facts on the Senate Protecting the Integrity of the Supreme Court
Fact Sheet: Republicans Are Standing Firm
Fact Sheet: Democrats—not Republicans—set the precedent for waiting
Fact Sheet: The Truth About a 4-4 Court
Fact Sheet: The Senate’s Job
Fact Sheet: The Precedent for Waiting
The current vacancy on the Supreme Court arose on February 13, 2016 with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senator Hatch was a longtime friend of Justice Scalia, and his tribute to the late Justice can be found HERE.
---------------------------
My Meeting with Merrick Garland
By Orrin Hatch
[LINK]
Like many of my Senate colleagues, I recently met with Chief Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. I have known Judge Garland for many years and think highly of his character and credentials. He has an excellent reputation among lawyers and fellow judges alike. I met with Judge Garland as a friend and out of respect for his position as a distinguished federal judge. We discussed our families and a variety of personal matters.
Our meeting, however, does not change my conviction that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee after this presidential election cycle. Especially given my personal affection for Judge Garland, I remain committed to thoughtful consideration of a nominee without the particular divisiveness of this campaign season further politicizing the confirmation process.
I have taken this principled position in accordance with decades of established precedent and the guidance provided in the Constitution. The President has the power to nominate judges, but he cannot appoint them without the advice and consent of the Senate. These distinct roles are part of the checks and balances delineated in the Constitution, which allows the President and the Senate to determine for themselves how best to exercise their respective powers.
Over the years, the Senate has considered nominations in different ways at different times, depending on the circumstances. Consider these precedents with great bearing on the current circumstances:
The Senate has never confirmed a nominee to a Supreme Court vacancy that opened up this late in a term-limited President’s time in office;
This is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the American people had already started voting in a presidential election, and in the previous two instances—in 1956 and 1968—the Senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year;
And the only time the Senate has ever confirmed a nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy created after voting began in a presidential election year was in 1916, and that vacancy arose in very unique circumstances only because Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned his seat on the Court to run against incumbent President Woodrow Wilson.
Consistent with these and other precedents, and mindful of how the political dynamics of this presidential election could further poison what should be a respectful and fair confirmation process, a majority of Senators made clear soon after Justice Scalia’s death that the Senate would consider a nominee after the election season is over.
This position is not only consistent with a century of precedent; it has also been embraced by both Democrat and Republican leaders throughout the years. Democrats’ own words demonstrate that they would hold the same position if they were in a similar situation. For example, when he chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1992, Vice President Joe Biden recommended that the Senate refrain from considering a Supreme Court nomination in a presidential election year. We agree with him that combining a divisive Supreme Court confirmation fight and a nasty presidential election campaign would do more harm than good. Moreover, it would be unfair to the nominee. Indeed, holding the confirmation process amid the clamor and commotion of the current presidential election would thrust Judge Garland into a punishing political gauntlet that is below the dignity of a Supreme Court nominee. Because I care for Judge Garland personally and want to maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court, I believe the Senate is right to fill the current vacancy after the political season has ended.
A majority of Senators took this position shortly after Justice Scalia’s passing so that President Obama would know how a nomination would be handled. This decision is about the confirmation process, and has nothing to do with the qualifications, character, or record of the nominee. The reasons for considering a nominee after the political fireworks of a presidential election remain just as compelling today as they were in February following Justice Scalia’s death. In fact, the bitterness, pressure tactics, ad campaigns, and political grandstanding since then have only confirmed that we made the right decision.
The question for the Senate is when and how the confirmation process for the Scalia vacancy should occur. Democrat and Republican leaders have long maintained that the height of a presidential election season is not the right time. When the Senate does move forward, the confirmation process will no doubt function in the familiar way, with a Judiciary Committee hearing and a debate and vote in the full Senate. The nominee’s background and reputation, the views of experts, and the opinions of pundits and other third parties will be relevant when the confirmation process occurs, but not before.
Too many judges have relied on political and personal motivations, rather than the law, to decide cases. As a result, political agendas and objectives have had too great an influence on the process for appointing judges. Separating the confirmation process from a contentious presidential election campaign, therefore, is in the best interest of the judiciary, the Senate, and the nation.
---------------------------------
Back to Work: Under Chairman Hatch, Finance Committee Continues Success in 2016
Senate Finance Committee—In Review
Capitalizing on last year’s historic successes, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, continues to build a record of major legislative accomplishments.
Under Senator Hatch’s leadership, the number of Finance reported bills has grown to 39 this Congress, including two more trade bills that have been signed into law this year.
In an effort to promote a pro-growth agenda, Senator Hatch spearheaded passage of bipartisan Customs legislation and the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act. Together, these two bills strengthen trade enforcement at our borders and make U.S. companies more competitive on the international stage—a win for American workers and the economy.
Likewise, Senator Hatch has advanced proposals to protect taxpayers from fraud and identity theft. He has also held hearings focused on different aspects of tax reform to help lay the groundwork for a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code.
Senator Hatch continues strong in his efforts to improve healthcare for all Americans. That’s why he recently called for the halt of a proposed rule that is harmful to patients and providers alike. He has also led an investigation into the behavior of physicians recommending invasive surgeries, demanding more transparency and better protection for patients.
Under Senator Hatch’s able leadership, the Finance Committee is committed to advancing commonsense reforms that will benefit the nation.
--------------------------------------
