BLOGROLL

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)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch in the Washington Times. -Staff

In light of the country's current economic struggles, it is important we not lose sight of what really makes us competitive globally: our entrepreneurial spirit and the ability to innovate.

For more than 50 years, America's technological leadership has been the foundation for domestic economic growth, enhanced productivity and national security, and a sustainable competitive advantage within the global economy. While recent action in Washington encourages more research, we must realize the effects of tax policy and other legislation on the U.S. high-tech sector.

Technological advancements within the semiconductor -- the computational brains of every computer and electronic device -- industry in particular have spurred breakthroughs in energy efficiency, national defense, communications, health care, transportation and education. Semiconductor technology is essential not only to economic growth, but also to national security. In fact, the Defense Science Board issued a report on high-performance microchip supply, noting "semiconductor technology and manufacturing leadership is a national priority that must be maintained if the U.S. military is to continue to lead in the application of electronics to support the war fighter."

We welcome efforts on both sides of the aisle to increase basic research funding in the physical sciences, allow talented foreign students to stay here after they graduate and improve K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education -- all elements critical to our high-tech sector.

This spirit of bipartisanship was exemplified by broad support for the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (America COMPETES) Act and a permanent research-and-development tax credit.

This being said, increases in basic research funding and work-force improvements are only parts of the solution. For instance, the semiconductor industry faces many macro-environmental forces, domestically and abroad, that could hinder our economic growth. Other countries continue to recognize the importance of this industry while they pursue efforts to attract and grow high-tech investment. There is a $1 billion difference in total operating costs associated with a chip fabrication facility over a 10-year period abroad versus the United States. This cost savings is largely attributable to tax rates and other investment policies that reflect calculated thinking by our largest competitors. In contrast, the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Our high-tech sector will face even greater challenges if the administration's recent tax increases, like getting rid of deferral, are adopted for U.S. multinational firms. These proposals amount to a tax on innovation.

If we want U.S. companies to be competitive globally, we should encourage them to compete internationally as well. More than 70 percent of U.S.-owned semiconductor manufacturing capacity is in the United States, although the U.S. market represents less than 25 percent of its sales. Semiconductors are America's second-largest export. Success for this industry abroad translates into success and new jobs at home, both in manufacturing and research and development.

New innovations will boost jobs and help us out of the economic downturn. Only new innovations will create job opportunities and bolster future industries. It's time for Washington to take this into account.

As Congress debates legislation on energy, health care and education, it is fundamental to understand the impact that the semiconductor industry has on these areas. At the same time, we must focus on the sustainability of the American high-tech sector in the global economy.

Comment (0)

Right now, when banks pay back TARP funds there's no requirement that the funds be used to pay down the national debt. Without that restriction, Treasury department can reuse that money over-and-over again -- meaning that instead of being an emergency program, TARP could become a perpetual program.

That's why Senator Hatch, along with Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln, introduced a bill yesterday to close the loophole by requiring that when TARP funds are repaid they are used to pay down the national debt.

Senator Hatch comments:

TARP has become a revolving slush fund for the Obama administration to nationalize our nation's private sector by using taxpayer money to acquire banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers. When TARP was signed into law last fall, it was authorized to purchase $700 billion in toxic or troubled assets from financial institutions to restore liquidity to the system. Unfortunately, it is now being misused as a go-to solution to address all of our nation's economic ills. That must not be allowed to continue.

This money belongs to the American people, not to the Obama administration to further its far left agenda. Taxpayers have been told to foot the bill for rescuing the financial sector, but now they are being forced to bail out any company this administration deems fit. It is time for Congress to ensure that TARP is used for its intended purpose and to require any money repaid to the Treasury Department be returned to the general fund.

Ten large banks have recently the Treasury Department's approval to repay $68 billion under TARP. It is time to restrict Treasury's access to these funds, thereby ensuring that the taxpayers' investment is protected.

Comment (0)

Senator Hatch led a group of 8 Senators this week in delivering a message to President Obama opposing a government-run plan in health care reform:

At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice. A recent Milliman study estimated that the cost-shifting from government payers (specifically Medicare and Medicaid) costs families with private insurance nearly $1800 more per year.

Furthermore, actuaries at the Lewin Group have concluded that such a plan open to all, and offering Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result in 119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage. This would run contrary to your pledge to the American families about allowing them to keep the coverage of their choice.

Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition. In his March, 2009 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, testified that it would be "extremely difficult" to create "a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field" against private coverage. The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

Comment (0)

The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the Miami Herald. -Staff

Since January, the Obama administration's decision to close the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center was heralded with fanfare; however, there were few details on how they actually planned to do so by January 2010. Recently -- like the Titanic hitting an iceberg -- the unsinkable presidency hit its first obstacle.

Congressional Democrats wisely realized that requesting $80 million to close Guantánamo, without any plan on how to spend so much money, was a terrible idea. Not to mention the fact that Guantánamo is a $200 million investment that cannot be duplicated, and it is nearly impossible to determine how much more money it would cost to care for these terrorists domestically. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for recognizing this flawed proposal and supporting Republican amendments stripping those funds out of the war supplemental.

Before we close Guantánamo, the public should know exactly who the remaining detainees are and how closing the prison will help keep us safe.

• Of the approximately 240 detainees remaining at Guantánamo, 174 of them received or conducted training at al Qaeda camps and facilities in Afghanistan; 112 participated in armed hostilities against U.S. and coalition forces; and 64 either worked for or had direct contact with Osama bin Laden.
• Of the 240 detainees, 17 are Chinese Uighurs who all have demonstrable ties to the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, a designated terrorist organization since 2004 that is known for its terrorist threats against the 2008 Beijing Olympics and its close ties to al Qaeda members. Hassan Mahsun, one of the trainers for the Uighurs, was an associate of Osama bin Laden, and when the group traveled to Afghanistan -- where they were later captured -- they lodged in al Qaeda safe houses and terrorist training facilities.

Recently, Attorney General Holder described the closure of Guantánamo as "good for all nations." He argued that anger over the prison has become a "powerful global recruiting tool for terrorists." But neither he nor anyone else has yet demonstrated a strong analytic understanding of what is motivating terrorist recruitment. Terrorist groups did not appear to face a shortage of recruits prior to the media frenzy on Guantánamo.

Violent jihadists are ideologically motivated. Closing Guantánamo in the next eight months is not going to be a "silver bullet" and solve the problem of terrorist recruitment. For this and other reasons, I am not willing to trade Guantánamo for the possibility of trying to appease and become more popular with our critics in foreign countries.

Sadly, Guantánamo's epitaph was written the day the executive orders to close it were signed, even though it is still an asset to this country. I don't see how anyone who is honest about the matter can characterize it any other way.

Comment (2)