BLOGROLL

Senator Hatch wants to give an opportunity to participate in the U.S. Senate's confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting a question for Judge Sotomayor.

Senator Hatch explains:

I would like to give you the opportunity to participate in Judge Sotomayor's hearings this week by emailing me any questions you would like to see asked at the hearing. Although I cannot guarantee your question will be asked, I will certainly review the questions you submit and see if there is an opportunity to use them during the course of the hearings.

Please email your questions to askjudgesotomayor@hatchforsenate.com.

Comment (7)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Spectrum. -Staff

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism, and harassment -- the offenses typically associated with hate crimes -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

Comment (2)

Senator Hatch gave his opening statement on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor this morning. His full statement follows:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the twelfth hearing for a Supreme Court nominee in which I have participated, and I am as struck today as I was the first time by the seriousness of our responsibility and its impact on America.

Comment (0)

Earlier this week, Senator Hatch was played an important role in securing passage of two immigration enforcement measures.

The first measure requires the Department of Homeland Security's to complete construction of pedestrian border fencing along the entire southwestern border.

Hatch commented:

I think everyone in America knows that we have a problem with the security on our borders. I've said for a long time that, when it comes to fixing our immigration system, border security has to be our first priority. Building a border fence that actually works will be a huge step forward in this effort.

The other immigration enforcement legislation Hatch helped pass permanently authorized the E-Verify program that allows employers to electronically verify the immigration status of employees. Without this legislation, the E-Verify program was set to expire on September 30th. In addition to extending the program, government contractors will not be required to use the E-Verify program to check the employment status of employees working on government contracts -- ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to employ illegal immigrants.

Hatch commented further:

E-Verify has proven to be a valuable tool to help businesses comply with the law. The Democrats have been very reluctant to extend this program longer than a few months at a time. Yet none of them wanted to go on the record in opposition to the program today, because I think they all see how important this program is in helping businesses ensure that they are in compliance with the law and that their workers are legally eligible to work in the United States. This amendment ensures that we won't face the same eleventh-hour dilemmas that we've had to deal with on this program in the past. I have consistently supported this program and have worked to make sure that it remains available, so I am thrilled that this amendment will accomplish that goal.

Comment (1)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Desert News. -Staff

The political stars have finally aligned for passage of a new and expansive federal hate-crimes law. Soon, President Barack Obama and a number of his Democratic allies in Congress will likely stand on a stage to tell the world just how much they hate hate, and they'll have a new law to prove it. Sadly, they could have expressed this same sentiment without recklessly and needlessly expanding the powers of the federal government. But what would be the fun in that?

The House passed a hate-crimes bill on April 29, and a similar bill has been introduced in the Senate. Both would create a new federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury (or attempting to do so) because of the victim's actual or perceived "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability." A person unfamiliar with the hate-crimes debate reading these provisions would likely respond by asking, "Wait, isn't that already a crime?" At that point, they'd officially be one step ahead of the proponents of these bills.

Currently, 45 states already have hate-crimes statutes on the books. Furthermore, crimes such as murder, assault, vandalism and harassment -- the offenses typically associated with hate crimes -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the U.S. In the many years Congress has debated this issue, we have heard horrific accounts of killings, beatings or other such crimes motivated by bias or prejudice. During that time, many of us have been asking for evidence that these crimes are going unpunished at the state level.

We're still waiting.

The most oft-repeated example is the story of Matthew Shepard, a young Wyoming man who was savagely beaten and murdered in 1998 because of his sexual orientation. The horrific accounts of Shepard's murder have been detailed countless times as justification for a new federal hate-crimes law. The Senate hate-crimes bill bears Shepard's name, which is ironic because his story perfectly demonstrates why such a law is unnecessary. Both of Shepard's killers were tried, convicted and sentenced to consecutive life terms in state court. Make no mistake, Shepard's story is a profoundly tragic one, but an expanded federal hate-crimes law would have done nothing to prevent the murder or add to the punishment his killers received. This is typically the case.

Both bills introduced this year also would expand the definition of a hate crime to cover offenses motivated by a victim's "gender identity." However, "gender identity" is not defined in either bill, nor is there any existing legal definition of the term. Using what appears to be the conventional understanding of "gender identity," one must conclude that it is a matter of the self-perception. So, in essence, this legislation would provide enhanced punishment for crimes wherein the perpetrator was motivated by the victim's perception of themselves. Taking us even further through the looking glass, the bills also include crimes motivated by the victim's perceived gender identity, meaning they would punish a perpetrator's false perception of a victim's self-perception.

At best, this legislation unnecessarily intrudes on state governments and creates crimes that are impractical to prosecute. At worst, it would be unconstitutional.

The authors of this legislation have maintained that Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce allows for the prohibition and punishment of hate crimes because they indirectly affect interstate commerce. This is difficult to square with the Supreme Court's views on the Commerce Clause as the court has determined that a more direct link to interstate commerce is required to justify federal regulation of noneconomic activity.

Also, while both bills ostensibly prohibit prosecution for any activities protected by the First Amendment, the fact that they punish certain motives on the basis of political and social viewpoints calls their constitutionality into question. Past experience demonstrates that the only way the government will be able to prove such motives exist is to delve into defendants' personal lives -- the books they read, the Web sites they visit, the churches they go to -- and place them before a jury. Constitutional issues aside, the picture of a jury deliberating over the specific thoughts of a defendant should be enough to make supporters second-guess the wisdom of this approach.

This is not 1960; it is 2009. While violence and criminal activity motivated by prejudice still occur, any claims that state officials continue to turn a blind eye when confronted with such detestable acts are not supported by the evidence. Ultimately, the president and the Democrats in Congress should find a constitutionally permissible new way to declare their hatred of hate.

Comment (2)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in The Hill. -Staff

America's ingenuity continues to fund our economy, and we must protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn creates an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs, two significant pillars in our economy.

The patent system is the bedrock of innovation. Last year alone, nearly 500,000 applications were filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the world's leading agency for intellectual property protection. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a worldwide leader in science, engineering and technology, but also reflects countless new jobs waiting to be unleashed. When patents are developed commercially, they create jobs for the companies marketing products, and for their suppliers, distributors and retailers. One such patent has positive stimulatory effects across almost all sectors of our economy.

If there's anything that I've become more certain of over these past several months, it's this: If we are to have a durable economic recovery, we must rely on our renowned American ingenuity to lead us into prosperity again. Those of us in the IP community have long known the strong connection between a robust patent system and a healthy economy.

Yet, we have not made significant updates to the patent system since 1952. Put another way, the last time the patent system was significantly changed, the structure of DNA had not been discovered; gasoline was around 27 cents a gallon; and we had not yet gone to the moon. Cell phones, MP3 players, GPS navigators and the Internet were far beyond anyone's imagination. Technology has surpassed what anyone would have ever imagined back then, but unfortunately, our patent system has not been able to keep up with the growth in American innovation. The courts have interpreted the law in light of change, but that piecemeal process has left areas of the law unclear and out of balance -- leaving some important, unresolved gaps.

If we are going to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and continue to lead the globe in innovation, then we must have an efficient and streamlined patent system that provides high-quality patents while reducing counterproductive litigation.

That is why Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and I have been working on patent reform legislation for years -- three Congresses to be exact. From the outset, we had three primary goals: (1) to improve patent quality and the patent application process; (2) to improve and clarify several aspects of patent litigation, including the creation of a less expensive, more expeditious administrative alternative to litigating patent validity issues; and (3) to make the United States's patent system, where it is useful to do so, more consistent with patent systems throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

My years of legislative experience in the U.S. Senate has not only allowed me to broker some landmark initiatives, but has also taught me some valuable lessons. Namely, legislation that endures the test of time must balance as many interests as possible. This balance must be achieved without compromising the original goals for the legislation that stem from public policy considerations. As the Patent Reform Act of 2009 continues to work its way through Congress, it is crucial that we get it right and make it the best it can be. Too much is at stake. After all, if history repeats itself, we may not revisit this issue for another five decades.

Comment (0)

President Obama and Democrats in Congress promise that their health care plan will allow you to keep your current health coverage if you want to, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not true:

Q: How many Americans will lose their current health coverage under the President's health care plan?

A: President Obama's health care plan will cause 22 million Americans to lose their choice of health coverage.

Previous: President's Health Care Bill Hits Major Snag

Comment (1)

Senator Orrin Hatch speaks out against adopting a government-run health care plan through a so-called "public option."

The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

Comment (1)

With today's news that 9 banks repaid more than $66 billion they received from the TARP program, we're reminded of the importance of passing Senator Hatch's bipartisan bill to close a loophole in the program that allows the treasury to recycle these funds rather than using them to pay down the national debt.

Previous: Leading Efforts To Close TARP Loophole

Comment (0)

President Obama's health care proposal hit a major snag on Monday after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their first cost first cost estimate of the plan.

The report CBO concluded that the President's plan will:

• Cost at least $1 trillion
• Cause 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage
• Decrease the number of uninsured by 16 million at a cost of $62,500 per currently uninsured person

Senator Hatch commented on the report:

At a time when the president is working with congressional Democrats to quickly cram an ultra-costly health care plan through the Senate HELP Committee, followed by a similar approach in the Senate Finance Committee, we were all stunned today to learn from the CBO that the bill will cause more than 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage. This proposal flies in the face of the president's pledge to American families that they could keep the health care coverage of their choice. The CBO estimate shows that the Democratic proposal will decrease the number of uninsured by about 16 million at a cost of 1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years, or $62,500 per uninsured.

It should be noted that the CBO's estimate does not reflect the final cost of the President's bill -- since it does not take into account the cost of a massive expansion of Medicaid, a new government-run plan nor a job-killing employer mandate -- however the costs are only expected to increase!

Comment (2)