Hatch Lauds Passage of Trade Secrets Bill as a “Critical Victory for IP and Business Communities”
Legislation expected to pass House of Representatives and become law soon
Theft of trade secrets costs U.S. businesses hundreds of billions each year
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today the Senate passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act—a bipartisan bill co-authored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chris Coons (D-DE) that will save the American economy billions of dollars each year by combatting trade secret theft. This legislation—which passed the Senate by a vote of 87-0—advances a key reform to intellectual property law by allowing companies to defend their trade secrets in federal court. Under current law, trade secrets—which include customer lists, algorithms, software codes, unique designs, industrial techniques, and food recipes—are the only form of intellectual property that U.S. businesses cannot protect from misuse or theft through federal civil action.
"Passage of this legislation is not only a critical victory for the intellectual property and business communities, but also an example of what Congress can accomplish when we put party politics aside and focus on areas of agreement,” Senator Hatch said. “Throughout my Senate service, I have always sought to to advance public policy priorities that will benefit everyday Americans and strengthen the national economy. Through this bill, we can do both.”
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
--------------------------
Utah TV Reports on Hatch’s Defend Trade Secrets Act
Washington, D.C.—Following the 87-0 passage of Senator Hatch’s Defend Trade Secrets Act in the United States Senate yesterday, Utah television newscasts reported on the bill and what it will mean for Utah families and businesses.
After the bill passed, Senator Hatch spoke about the impact the Defend Trade Secrets Act will have on Utah businesses:
Tonight we passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a bill two years in the making that will help Utah innovators and job creators protect the trade secrets they rely on to remain competitive and successful.
Trade secrets are the groundbreaking ideas that give businesses a competitive advantage.
For example, Café Rio’s trade secrets include the restaurant's recipes for its sweet pork and cilantro-lime ranch dressing— really two of my personal favorites.
DoTerra’s trade secrets include the manufacturing process for the essential oils you might use when you get sick, or if you just want to relax and feel better.
And technology companies like Domo count on trade secret laws to shield confidential codes, algorithms, and even workplace practices from competitors. These protections allow companies in Utah’s Silicon Slopes to compete with some of the larger, better-funded firms in Silicon Valley.
I am grateful that I was able to co-author this legislation, which will allow Utah’s businesses to protect their most valuable information in federal court.
This bill was a tremendous bipartisan accomplishment with 65 cosponsors from both parties. With passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, both Utah and our nation have reason to celebrate.
--------------------------
Senate HELP Committee Holds Mark-up for PATH Act to Create Streamlined Antibiotic Approval Pathway
Washington, D.C.—The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a mark-up today to consider the PATH Act, sponsored by Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). This legislation would create a new drug approval pathway to streamline access, bolster innovation, and encourage development of potentially life-saving antibiotic drugs for patients.
“The world is facing a critical threat of life-threatening bacteria that have grown resistant to even our most powerful antibiotics,” Hatch said. “Sixty-three percent of infectious disease doctors have treated patients with infections that did not respond to any antibiotics. Two million Americans acquire serious infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria each year, and 23,000 people die annually from these infections. A dearth of antibiotic drugs in development compounds this crisis. Consider that almost three decades have passed without the discovery of new types of antibiotics. We need to develop new antibiotics to treat the most serious of superbugs, and the PATH Act would significantly spur such action.”
“Over the last few years we’ve experienced a lag in the development of new antibiotic treatments,” Bennet said. “We need new drugs to fight antibiotic-resistant bacteria that pose serious and unique challenges to health care professionals, veterans, and vulnerable populations. This bill will encourage research and development of new drugs that could save the lives of thousands of Americans each year.”
Background
“Superbugs”—or bacteria that are substantially resistant or unresponsive to any existing and available antibiotic—are an increasingly urgent public health threat, both at home and abroad. While antibiotic-resistant bacteria kills thousands of Americans each year, less than ten new antibiotics have made it to market since 2000. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also a significant concern to our troops, affecting more than a third of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, according to the Department of Defense.
In an effort to address some of the significant regulatory obstacles hindering antibiotic development and patient access to life-saving treatments, the Promise for Antibiotics and Therapeutics for Health (PATH) Act would permit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve an antibacterial drug for a limited patient population upon determining that the drug treats a serious or life-threatening condition and addresses an unmet need. In addition, the bill includes several provisions to guide appropriate use of antibiotics approved under this pathway, such as labeling and promotional material requirements.
Letters of Support:
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
------------------------
Hatch, Bennet, Cornyn, Warner Introduce Bill to Better Prepare Teachers For the Classroom
Washington, D.C.—Today Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Michael Bennet, D-Colo., John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act—a bipartisan bill that will improve professional development opportunities for teachers in high-needs school districts.
“The first few years in the classroom can be overwhelming for many teachers, but we can support them by expanding access to education training programs,” Hatch said. “This bill enables schools in high-needs districts to partner with a broader range of organizations to provide more professional development opportunities for educators and help prepare them for a career in the classroom. Our proposal ensures that teachers have greater access to the resources they need to thrive in their professions and inspire a new generation of Americans.”
“Recruiting and preparing great teachers is critical to ensuring every kid, regardless of their zip code, has access to a quality education,” Bennet said. “Our bipartisan bill provides greater flexibility for school districts to partner with universities and other teacher preparation organizations to help ensure our teachers have the skills they need to teach our kids for the 21st century. This will help teachers grow professionally and give our kids more opportunity for success in the classroom.”
“The Department of Education estimates that we will need to hire 430,000 new teachers by 2020. We must embrace innovative approaches to teacher preparation in order to meet these human capital needs,” Warner said. “Our proposal supports a diverse and effective teacher workforce by allowing districts greater autonomy in choosing preparation partners and creating a direct link between teachers’ educator preparation and professional development. The Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program has already done incredible work in Virginia. This bill will amplify the program’s impact to serve a broader swath of teachers and students across the Commonwealth.”
Background
Recent reports and statistics show that new teachers feel increasingly unprepared in the classroom during their first few years of teaching. They often express the need for more classroom experience and support from their preparation programs and colleges. In the current state of educator preparation, progress is stagnant and innovation is limited.
Allowing for More Innovation in Educator Preparation Will Help Elevate the Sector
This legislation affords high-needs school districts the opportunity to forge new partnerships for the Teacher Quality Partnership grants under Title II of the Higher Education Act. It allows districts to choose which educator preparation organization (e.g., a college of education, nonprofit provider, alternative certification provider, etc.) will serve as their primary partner for the grant, based on shortages in teacher areas and qualifications.
This bill also fosters a stronger connection between a teacher’s professional development and induction within the partnership grants. It allows for up to 10 percent of grant funds to be used to create a nexus between a teacher’s clinical experiences and their professional development once placed in a school or district. By strengthening the link between educator preparation and professional development, this bill will help teachers develop in their professions and will support innovation in educator preparation based on district feedback.
Furthermore, this legislation encourages teachers to use both qualitative and quantitative data to improve student achievement and classroom instruction. It also requires the Institute of Educational Sciences to evaluate independently the effectiveness of the Teacher Quality Partnership grants.
Statements of Support
Daniel Weisberg, Chief Executive Officer of TNTP:
“All kids deserve to learn from teachers who can put them on a path for success after high school. The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act would bring us closer to that goal by sparking a wave of innovation and collaboration in a field that has long been mired in process and compliance. The bill would allow school systems to partner with a much wider range of teacher preparation programs, opening the door to new approaches that will equip more teachers with the skills and expertise they need to help their students succeed. With this new flexibility, school districts could also partner with successful local providers to create new programs designed to match the specific needs of their students--reliable sources of great teachers that could help address teacher shortages over the long run.”
Third Way:
“The landscape of educator preparation has changed dramatically over the last two decades, with 1 in 5 teachers now opting to seek certification through non-traditional routes. Third Way is pleased to see that the Elevating Educator Preparation Through Innovation Act gives districts the ability to establish more meaningful partnerships with a wider range of preparation providers in order to better meet the needs of their teachers and improve the outcomes for the students they serve.”
Allison Riddle, Teacher, Davis School District and 2014 Utah Teacher of the Year:
“With the deeper standards our students must master, it is critical that our pre-service teachers engage in a meaningful clinical experience that will refine their instructional skills. This bill creates a powerful exchange of pedagogical needs between the preparation program and the professional development of our novice teachers.”
Gay Beck, Teacher, Alpine School District and 2011 Utah Teacher of the Year:
“I believe greater innovation in educator preparation can occur when the districts have greater autonomy in choosing their preparation partners. As well, I like the part of the bill that encourages a greater connection between educator preparation and professional development. That connection can make both pieces stronger and give greater support to our new teachers.”
Hope Street Group:
"The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act provides for more flexibility and ownership for local education agencies (LEAs) with the greatest needs. LEAs are directly impacted by their hiring decisions and should therefore be a partner in the preparation their future staff receives. Simply put, if district leadership support and are involved in selecting preparation programs best aligned with their students' needs, they are more likely to see positive impact on school culture, student outcomes, and teacher retention."
Jill Cullis, Teacher, Aurora Public Schools and 2015 Hope Street Group National Teacher Fellow:
“By allowing schools to choose which preparation partner with whom they want to forge a relationship, they are able to choose the specific program which best suits their needs. Conversely, based upon competition, institutions of teacher preparation would be benefiting by creating a stronger pool of teacher candidates and, therefore, be in higher demand. The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act allows for both of these opportunities and brings the free market concept to education.”
Jacqueline Greer, Executive Director - DC, Urban Teachers:
“The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act creates an opportunity for greater communication between teacher providers and districts. This ensures that candidates will receive the clinical experiences and support needed to effectively teach students in high-need schools. This feedback loop assists teacher providers in making meaningful and informed improvements to their programs and in improving districts' ability to provide relevant professional development to new teachers – furthering their practice and improving outcomes for students.”
Teach Plus:
"Teach Plus applauds Senators Hatch, Bennet, Cornyn, and Warner for their leadership in moving forward to address our nation's critical need to better prepare our teaching force. Our teachers are supportive of this legislation -- particularly the deepening of the connection between teacher preparation and professional development -- and are eager to see it move forward."
Data Quality Campaign:
“The Data Quality Campaign commends Senators Hatch, Bennet, Cornyn, and Warner for their commitment to using education data as a powerful tool to increase education quality and support student achievement. The Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act encourages states to use education data in innovative ways to support effective teaching and to conduct the meaningful research needed to enhance education across the country. When teachers have the skills to effectively and ethically use a wide array of qualitative and quantitative data, they are empowered as professionals to improve student achievement and classroom instruction. In addition, the bill’s support for independent program evaluations will allow states and educator preparation programs to understand how well they are preparing future educators for the classroom and to improve their own programming and better prepare educators for success.”
Knowledge Alliance:
“Knowledge Alliance supports the Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act, which provides teacher preparation program grants that encourage teachers to use both qualitative and quantitative data to improve student achievement and classroom instruction. In addition, the Elevating Educator Preparation through Innovation Act also requires the Institute of Educational Sciences to independently evaluate the effectiveness of the grants to help ensure the continuous improvement of these programs.”
---------------------------
Hatch Decries Democrat’s “Politically Convenient Fairytales” on SCOTUS
"No matter how many times the Minority Leader contradicts himself and tries to avoid his own judicial confirmation record, his claims today are still false."
Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the longest-serving member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took to the Senate floor today to defend the constitutionality of the Senate’s decision to wait until after the election to consider a Supreme Court nominee. In defending the Republican position, he also laid bare many of the false claims made by the President and his supporters about the Senate’s role in the confirmation process.
No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader claims that the Constitution dictates how and when the Senate must conduct the confirmation process, it is still false. No matter how many times he claims that the Senate is not doing its job, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader questions the integrity and character of the Judiciary Committee Chairman, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader contradicts himself and tries to avoid his own judicial confirmation record, his claims today are still false.
The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below:
Mr. President, I rise once again to address the Supreme Court vacancy created by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution gives the nomination power to the President and gives the advice and consent power to the Senate, but does not tell either how exercise their power. Our job of advice and consent begins with deciding how best to exercise this power in each situation, and the Senate has done so in different ways, at different times, and under different circumstances.
For two reasons, I am convinced that the best way to exercise our power of advice and consent regarding the Scalia vacancy is to defer the confirmation process until the current presidential election season is over. The first reason is that the circumstances we face today make this the wrong time for the confirmation process.
This vacancy occurred in a presidential election year, with the campaigns and voting already underway. Different parties control the nomination and confirmation phases of the judicial appointment process. The confirmation process, especially for Supreme Court nominees, has become racked by discord. And this is one of the bitterest and dirtiest presidential campaigns we have seen in modern times.
Combining a Supreme Court confirmation fight and a nasty presidential campaign would create the perfect storm that would do more harm than good for the Court, the Senate, and the nation.
The circumstances I mentioned are identical to those that led Vice President Biden in 1992 to recommend exactly what we are doing today. In June 1992, when he chaired the Judiciary Committee, he identified these very circumstances and concluded: “[O]nce the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.”
To be fair, something significant has changed since 1992. The confirmation process has become even more partisan, contentious, and divisive. In 2001, Democrats plotted a procedural revolution, launching new tactics to prevent Republican judicial nominees from being confirmed. Over the next several years, they led 20 filibusters of appeals court nominees and prevented several from ever getting appointed. Then, in 2013, Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to abolish the very filibusters they had used so aggressively. The Minority Leader knows this because he was in the middle of it all. If the condition of the confirmation process in 1992 led Chairman Biden to recommend deferring it to a less politically charged time, Democrats’ actions since then have only made this conclusion more compelling today.
The second reason for deferring the confirmation process for the Scalia vacancy is that elections have consequences. The 2012 election obviously had consequences for the President and his power to nominate. But the 2014 election had its own consequences for the Senate and its power of advice and consent. A big reason that the American people gave Senate control to Republicans was to be a more effective check on how the President is exceeding his constitutional authority.
The 2016 election also will have consequences for the judiciary. The timing of the Scalia vacancy creates a unique opportunity for the American people to voice their opinion about the direction of the courts.
Mr. President, on Monday the Minority Leader reminded us of an important axiom. These are his words: “No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false.” I agree.
The Minority Leader claims that the Senate has a constitutional duty, a constitutional obligation, to hold a prompt hearing and timely floor vote for the President’s nominee to the Scalia vacancy. The Hill yesterday quoted him saying this: “The obligation is for them to hold hearings and to have a vote. That’s in the Constitution.” By my count, the Minority Leader has made this claim here on the Senate floor more than 40 times. Well, no matter how many times he says this falsehood, it is still false.
The Minority Leader’s claim is false because the Constitution says no such thing. This is what the Constitution actually says about appointing judges: “The President…shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint.” Nothing about hearings or votes, nothing about a timetable or schedule.
I say this to my Democratic colleagues: do you really want to stand behind a completely fictional, patently false claim like that? Do you really want to base your position on what the Washington Post Fact Checker called a politically convenient fairy tale? I understand that you want the Senate to conduct the confirmation process now for the President’s nominee. We can and should debate that. But will none of you be honest enough to at least say what everyone in this chamber knows, that the Constitution does not require us to do things what way?
The Minority Leader not only contradicts the Constitution, he contradicts himself. The Minority Leader was serving here in the Senate in 1992. Senator Reid took no issue with Chairman Biden’s conclusion that the circumstances at the time – the same circumstances that exist today – counseled deferring the confirmation process. Senator Reid did not assert then what he repeats so often today, that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees prompt hearings and timely floor votes.
On May 19, 2005, during the debate on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Minority Leader said of the Constitution: “Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote.”
In that 2005 speech, the Minority Leader was particularly adamant about this point. Claiming that the Senate has a duty to promptly consider each nominee and give them an up-or-down vote, he said, would “rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality.” Today, the political shoe is on the Minority Leader’s other foot and he is the one claiming that nominees must have prompt consideration and up or down votes. By his own standard, the Minority Leader is rewriting the Constitution and reinventing reality.
Now that it serves his own political interests, the Minority Leader has reversed course and claimed in a recent Washington Post opinion column that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees “a fair and timely hearing.” Let me once again mention 1992, when Chairman Biden denied a hearing to more than 50 Republican judicial nominees. He allowed no hearing at all, whether fair or unfair, timely or otherwise. In September 1992, the New York Times reported on page one that this was part of an obstruction strategy to keep judicial vacancies open in the hope that Bill Clinton would be elected. Senator Reid served here at the time, but I can find no record of him demanding that every nominee get a timely hearing. Instead, he wholeheartedly supported his party’s strategy of obstruction.
In his recent Post column, the Minority Leader also wrote that the Senate has a constitutional duty to give nominees a floor vote. Between 2003 and 2007, however, he voted 25 times to deny any floor vote at all to Republican judicial nominees. As far as I can tell, we have the same Constitution today as we did in 1992, 2003, 2005, and 2007. We have the same Constitution today, with a Democrat in the White House, as we did in the past with a Republican President. The Minority Leader cannot have it both ways. He cannot today insist that the Constitution requires the very hearings and floor votes that he and his fellow Democrats blocked in the past.
On Monday, the Minority Leader again attacked the Judiciary Committee and its distinguished chairman, Senator Grassley. The Minority Leader held up a quote from an editorial in an Iowa paper about how the Chairman is conducting the confirmation process. I don’t know when the Minority Leader started caring about what home-town newspaper editorials said about the confirmation process, but this appears to be yet another epiphany. On February 19, 2003, the Reno Gazette-Journal criticized Democrats for their filibuster of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals. A few weeks later, the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial called the filibuster campaign promoted by Senator Reid “nothing more than ideological posturing and partisan bluster.” As I mentioned earlier, the Minority Leader went on to vote 25 times for filibusters of Republican judicial nominees.
Also on Monday, the Minority Leader claimed that the Judiciary Committee is not doing its job and the chairman is “taking his marching orders from the Republican leader.” Later in the day, the Senate unanimously passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which I authored with Senator Chris Coons. The Minority Leader dismissed this legislative accomplishment because it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. He said: “I don’t see today why the Judiciary Committee should be given a few pats on the back.” The Minority Leader knows better. He knows that the strong bipartisan outcome for this legislation was the result of nearly two years of work behind the scenes, primarily at the staff level. It is painfully obvious that the Minority Leader desperately wants to score political points and to spin everything he can to his advantage. But to disparage and belittle the arduous work by both Democrats and Republicans, by both staff and Senators, is disgraceful and insulting.
Before he denigrated this significant bipartisan achievement, the Minority Leader should have read the Obama administration’s statement of policy on the bill. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will promote innovation and help minimize threats to American businesses, the economy, and national security interests. The Obama administration calls this an “important piece of legislation” that would “provide important protection to the Nation’s businesses and industries.”
No matter how many times you say a falsehood, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader claims that the Constitution dictates how and when the Senate must conduct the confirmation process, it is still false. No matter how many times he claims that the Senate is not doing its job, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader questions the integrity and character of the Judiciary Committee Chairman, it is still false. No matter how many times the Minority Leader contradicts himself and tries to avoid his own judicial confirmation record, his claims today are still false.
The Senate today has the same power of advice and consent as when Democrats were the majority. We have the same responsibility to determine the best way to exercise that power in each situation. In 1992, Chairman Biden recommended deferring the confirmation process so that “partisan bickering and political posturing” did not overwhelm everything else. The false claims and disreputable tactics being used today, including by the Minority Leader, only confirm Chairman Biden’s judgment and its application today. For the reasons I have explained before, and will no doubt do so again, the confirmation process for the Scalia vacancy should be deferred until the election season is over.
