{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where party = \"Republican\", state = \"UT\" and year = 2013 sorted by date descending", "rows": [["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=8826bd89-1c86-470a-a14b-5099ebe326b6", "Senator Lee has 100,000 Followers on Twitter - Top Tweets of 2013", "2013-12-31", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Early this morning, my following on Twitter surpassed 100,000. I would like to thank everyone that has joined the dialogue with me on Twitter. I have compiled a list of my most popular tweets from 2013. As you read through this list of tweets, you will see the important role you have all played in this dialogue. This year we have had important debates about controlling federal spending, protecting constitutional rights, protecting Americans from the negative effects of Obamacare, reforming immigration, and a variety of other topics.\r\n\r\nOn January 1, 2013, I had ~15,700 followers on twitter.\u00a0 Surpassing 100,000 followers is a great benchmark, and it verifies that more and more Americans are becoming engaged in the debate about the future of our country.\u00a0 I am hopeful that we can continue to carry this dialogue forward into 2014 to even more people.\u00a0\u00a0 I look forward to being a part of this debate.\u00a0\r\nHere are the Twitter highlights from 2013.\u00a0 Retweet your favorites:\r\n \r\nEverything about the #fiscalcliff deal was a failure: what Congress did, how Congress did it, and what Congress failed to do.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 2, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nSenator Ted Cruz has created his official Twitter account @SenTedCruz. You should follow him. Please RT #tcot #tlot #tgdn #txpol #pjnet\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nUnfortunately, the president is using Newtown tragedy to advance proposals that would do little to prevent such acts: http://t.co/SX7SjSKe\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe president\u2019s approach is inconsistent w/ #2ndAmendment rights, and it encroaches on state and local governments: http://t.co/7cRF13GR\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#NLRB decision represents vindication of principled stand I've taken against President\u2019s disregard of Constitution: http://t.co/jTHPsxr4\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe Budget Act requires president to submit budget to Congress by today. Not surprisingly, he failed to do so: http://t.co/Y6RqI4cT #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 4, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAfter disappointing hearing, unanswered questions, failure to comply with transparency requirements I cannot support #Hagel for SECDEF.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nLet's cut improper food stamp payments before cutting aircraft carrier deployments. #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/uHotSRDClS\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe should look into getting rid of free government cell phones before cutting border security. #CutThisNotThat #tcot pic.twitter.com/iZmLzNBcNb\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI join @SenTedCruz in objecting to Senate consideration of any CR w/out a vote on delaying funding of #Obamacare. http://t.co/F9W90o19eF\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 6, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAs @SenRandPaul began his filibuster of Brennan, I was questioning Holder on #drone strikes: http://t.co/CoFbBMjUfz\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 6, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThis is what I was doing on March 7 at 12:18 a.m. What were you doing? #StandWithRand http://t.co/ojXrrWrYNG\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nSen. McConnell says he will support the Cruz/Lee amendment to CR to defund #obamacare: http://t.co/oYpPlcLkKd #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 8, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe should cut USDA food tasting extravaganzas before food inspections. #CutThisNotThat #tcot pic.twitter.com/sumRy9kBRv\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 8, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nOur first priority to reduce spending should be to #DefundObamacare #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/wsDQjbG4J0\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nRand Paul, MIke Lee, and Ted Cruz threaten filibuster on guns: http://t.co/nV4vGseZ3H #2A #tcot #tgdn #tlot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 26, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe must ensure that Constitutional rights are not taken away casually: http://t.co/rDhWy4SNmc #2ndAmendment #tcot @SenTedCruz @SenRandPaul\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHere is my response to the president's #guncontrol address: http://t.co/cGE1nPnrp2 #2ndAmendment #tcot @SenRandPaul @SenTedCruz\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPush RT button. I just received word @MarcoRubio & Senator Inhofe have signed Paul, Cruz, Lee Letter to protect #2ndAmendment. @InhofePress\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nMomentum is Building to Protect #2ndAmendment in Senate: http://t.co/GVGLWan3Gl Please RT @SenRandPaul @SenTedCruz @MarcoRubio @Inhofepress\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 29, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nConstitution Wasn't Written to Maximize the Convenience of Government: http://t.co/YYyvAPasum #2ndAmendment #UniversalBackgroundCheck\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI have joined 34 senators to prevent ratification of UN Arms Trade Treaty, which undermines #2ndAmendment rights: http://t.co/0blxK8X02i\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 3, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#Guncontrol isn't about guns, it's about control. The right to bear arms isn't about the arms, it's about the right: http://t.co/bcXpQTWpKF\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 4, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#UniversalBackgroundCheck bill S.649 doesn't keep guns out of hands of criminals, it turns gun owners into criminals: http://t.co/tPBMtwkZRk\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 5, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPresident doesn't want filibuster because it prolongs debate. #Protect2A Add your voice: http://t.co/z83jhlMWci pic.twitter.com/qXTQ1GWdcq\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nUniversal Background Check bill authorizes Eric Holder to create rules to require gun transfer records: http://t.co/UtXBveS1yb #Protect2A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n.@SenateDems Here is the bipartisan list of 50 Senators who already voted to protect the #2ndAmendment. #Protect2A pic.twitter.com/mdr6vjnF2P\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI am headed to Senate floor right now to share #Protect2A submissions. Add your voice if you haven't already: http://t.co/V25SqXm65l #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 10, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe Senate is voting now on a gun control bill that senators haven't been able to read yet: http://t.co/FuWDvqE6uh #Protect2A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nMT @sentedcruz: In statement w/ @SenMikeLee & @SenRandPaul: http://t.co/noFN6t8cFY Why is Senate voting on bill no one has read? #Protect2A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt's unfortunate that we will have so little time to #ReadTheBill before holding hearings on #immigration reform: http://t.co/89kvAkZsQk\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI voted NO on Toomey/Manchin background check proposal. The Amendment failed to receive 60 votes. #Protect2A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAfter sequester, #FAA still has $9.2 billion to cover the $6.5 billion they need to operate #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/N1HHMtwL1n\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 24, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe Senate should formally review public policies that led to the illegal abortion practices of #Gosnell and others: http://t.co/x4GQYioUUX\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 6, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAmericans should be able to exercise constitutionally protected rights w/out fear of political retribution from #IRS: http://t.co/azPhK5vMIf\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 13, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe #Gosnell trial is not about one man, it's about an unaccountable industry that preys upon vulnerable & innocent: http://t.co/IMsW0DrEZj\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 13, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe #IRS scandal is the inevitable consequence of a government that has gotten too big & too expensive to control: http://t.co/zqV0oBynP2\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWhen an agency like the #IRS can single out Tea Party groups, we are no longer citizens but subjects. http://t.co/h0uuGwv2Pc\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nFiring a few #IRS employees won't solve the problem. American people need to demand that government be less involved and less intrusive.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nSenate Democrats block @senrandpaul resolution condemning #IRS: http://t.co/6p4NSqZAUt #Protect1A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI joined a press conference today to speak out against a government that has grown so large it can't be managed. #IRS pic.twitter.com/VtdNLKBfAV\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHelp share this --> The Obama Scandals Aren\u2019t About Bad Government, but Big Government http://t.co/3kcrY9kCfc #TCOT #IRS\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nObama's recess appointments ruled unconstitutional again today by 3rd Circuit: http://t.co/9vGr3pf2jV #StopIgnoringTheConstitution\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nTo prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power: http://t.co/gk5B4rPRP1 #Rush #tcot #IRS #Scandal\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nDon't be surprised that a $3.7 trillion government is corrupt. Be surprised that anyone expects a $3.7 trillion government not to be. #IRS\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 21, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI joined Senator Rubio and @SenTedCruz to oppose raising the debt ceiling through budget conference: http://t.co/aCQ8gkuIhN Please RT #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 22, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n\"The American people don\u2019t trust Congress \u2013 or either party, & we have given them 17 trillion reasons not to.\" http://t.co/T4wLyVkpXF\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 23, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nVIDEO: Senator Lee Explains Why Senator McCain is Mistaken about Back Room #DebtCeiling Increase: http://t.co/CFm1xL1kV6 #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you agree that US should at least track & report the billions of taxpayer dollars we send to #UN: http://t.co/n3avOOmc0l\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 31, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#NSA surveillance of #Verizon cell phone records illustrates why I voted against Patriot Act: http://t.co/6G2PuvJICu #Protect4A\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 6, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you think the government needs to #GetAWarrant: http://t.co/DqEcGB3gFr #Protect4A #NSA #Verizon\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 6, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#Gangof8 talking points don't match reality of Gang of 8 legislation: http://t.co/5wzH7dWWjY\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 10, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI voted against motion to proceed to #Gangof8 bill. I think it is a bad vehicle for reforming immigration system. pic.twitter.com/yc00tK4e93\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nS.744 surrenders control of #immigration law to the Secretary of Homeland Security and other unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. #CIRfloor\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nS.744 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security in hundreds of instances, to simply ignore #immigration law. #CIRfloor\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe don\u2019t need another 1,000 page bill full of unintended consequences. We need real #immigration reform. http://t.co/5Mp6TyLsBp #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHere is the twitter version of my #immigration speech from today: http://t.co/Rlaf2DJigV Please help me RT these #tcot #Gangof8\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you don't think President Obama should shut down energy development on public lands: http://t.co/FG3k6ocsXs\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 13, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nMike Lee and Ted Cruz challenge Obama with new military religious freedom amendments http://t.co/Ejj5v90i6g via @DCExaminer\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 18, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nCongress should have to approve DHS border security plans. Cutting out Congress means cutting out American people: http://t.co/NqXWSCy85r\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 19, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you agree w/ me, @SenRandPaul, @SenatorTomUdall, & @ChrisMurphyCT that we shouldn't send military funds to Syrian opposition.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 20, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you agree w/ me, @SenRandPaul, @SenatorTomUdall, & @ChrisMurphyCT that we shouldn't send military funds to Syrian opposition.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 20, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nFrom day one, the country was misled about what was in #Go8 bill. The talking points never matched bill's reality: http://t.co/8uM7N7bSFY\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nFrom day one, the country was misled about what was in #Go8 bill. The talking points never matched bill's reality: http://t.co/8uM7N7bSFY\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI support immigration reform. But #Go8 is not immigration reform. It is big government dysfunction. I am voting no: http://t.co/0Rx1s0lT78\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nRead & RT if you agree that Americans need public answers on data government is collecting on them via #PatriotAct: http://t.co/KaSpgvFtjr\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPlease RT if you agree that #Obamacare is unaffordable and unfair: http://t.co/VcsdvAGOp4 #DontFundIt\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nLabor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios': http://t.co/LK6RLy6dIF #ObamacareReadingList\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 21, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nRT if you agree: Since President admits he can't follow #Obamacare, then Congress shouldn't fund it. http://t.co/D7x9Ke27TG #DontFundIt\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 23, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAdd your voice to the effort to eliminate funding for #ObamaCare: http://t.co/YeYCKFTiH9 #DontFundIt Make this go viral w/ RTs\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIf House passes bill to #DefundObamacare, will Senate Democrats fund government or shut it down to protect Obamacare? http://t.co/lAIYGRSrpP\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 5, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt's the president who is threatening to shut down government, though media won't cover it that way: http://t.co/9ruyoqlDOf #DefundObamacare\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 14, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nShare this clip of @SenTedCruz discussing #DefundObamacare if you are part of the grassroots tsunami: http://t.co/LwQwd7jSqi #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 26, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI need help to defeat the false narrative that the effort to #DefundObamacare is an effort to shutdown government: http://t.co/qQPo0tOrna\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nBefore taking action in #Syria, the president should present his plan's cost, objectives, and timeline to Congress and get authorization.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIf the president believes the situation in #Syria presents a threat to U.S. national security, the right thing to do is call back Congress.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIf the president can't convince Congress that #Syria crisis threatens our national security, military intervention should be off the table.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAfter participating in #Syria briefings yesterday, I do not believe that military action should be taken: http://t.co/Ta8BXGgI5g\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 5, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#DefundObamacareBecause it was unconstitutionally rewritten twice by the Supreme Court and multiple times by the president.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 19, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe House of Representatives has listened to the American people and just voted to #DefundObamacare.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 20, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nTake time today to thank your member of the House of Representatives if they voted to keep the government open and #DefundObamacare.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 20, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe American People Are Rallying Around the effort to #DefundObamacare: http://t.co/IvRSP2Zr0W RT if Republicans should hold our ground.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 22, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt is now time for the Senate to act to #DefundObamacare: http://t.co/h9av2tsffy via\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 24, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nJust today my office has received 1,093 emails, and almost every single one is asking me to do all I can to #DefundObamacare #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI don't understand why voting to give Harry Reid power to gut the House defund bill is a vote in favor of House bill. #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep. #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI would like to thank @SenTedCruz for his extraordinary effort to #MakeDCListen. http://t.co/Px0pRUn1Zk\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nSenate Republicans can prevent Sen. Reid from funding #Obamacare in the House CR if they stay unified: http://t.co/oIl6iggvdk #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 26, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n\"The American people will always have the final word\" http://t.co/2KBRluXXSp RT if you agree #NoOnCloture #MakeDCListen #DefundObamacare\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n\"If #Obamacare is the law, why won't the president follow it?\": http://t.co/qOIVSZry7f #MakeDCListen @FoxNewsSunday\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe shouldn't have to fund everything in order to fund anything: http://t.co/bqrTnxO7lY #Shutdown #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 3, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nToday Senate Democrats made it clear that unless we fund #Obamacare, they won't fund veterans' benefits: http://t.co/86bw3yNJsk\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 4, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHouse continues to pass bipartisan bills to fund government. Senate Democrats & president still refuse to negotiate: http://t.co/kt2fsk0tOr\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 5, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nObama Admin\u2019s behavior during week 1 of #shutdown has been the best argument against #Obamacare anyone has ever made: http://t.co/EC4s0D4btl\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nGovernment will use \u2013 and misuse \u2013 its power to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing Americans: http://t.co/cMZJ6dYKaN\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe message behind Obama Admin\u2019s #shutdown bullying is the same message sent by IRS\u2019s abuses of political opponents: do what I say, or else\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe #shutdown is introducing us to the abusive, partisan, unaccountable bureaucracy that, will soon be running America\u2019s health care system.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nEach day of #shutdown brings a new and more vivid example of why it's critical that we not allow Washington to reach further into our lives.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe now see how determined the president is to expand power of federal government & use that power to harm the country to get what he wants.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt is time to stop using the word \"public\" when talking about land owned and managed by the federal government: http://t.co/9UGqVNnkhO\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 8, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAlmost 10k people signed my #DontFundIt letter during 1st day online. #Obamacare had 6,200 sign-ups on its first day: http://t.co/xTju20exB1\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 10, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nToday, @RushLimbaugh read one of my e-newsletters on his show. Many are asking where they can find it. Here's a link: http://t.co/Zk12tc2qTH\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 10, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHere is a link to the Values Voter Summit speech I delivered earlier today: http://t.co/M5QVifhXSn #VVS13\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nRead and share the letter I signed with 49 other senators to announce our opposition the UN Arms Trade Treaty: http://t.co/fx8GLTWs7n #UNATT\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 15, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHere we are again: A proposal that maintains status quo, very little time to read & evaluate the bill, & no time to explain it to Americans.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt appears that this fight will end the same way #Obamacare began: in a last-minute back-room deal forced on Congress & the American people.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe media keeps asking, was it worth it? My answer is that it is always worth it to do the right thing: http://t.co/VIOhWj4zOA\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nFighting against an abusive government in defense of individual rights and freedoms is always the right thing: http://t.co/M77ByEtoe5 #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAvoiding difficult battles is how we ended up in this mess: $17 trillion in debt, a broken entitlement system, a tax code no one understands\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWhen the avoidance of political risk becomes our dominant motivation, only the Washington establishment wins. And the American people lose.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe must remind the American people of the harmful effects of #Obamacare at every opportunity if we are ever going to see it repealed.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAmericans are realizing that with #Obamacare the Administration has either been dishonest or incompetent \u2013 or both: http://t.co/mlL5WHujv1\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThere will be very real consequences for people in both parties as a result of #Obamacare. American people will have the last word.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThis is not over. We have an obligation to fight for the American people. And I do not intend to let the people down.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHelp me RT this: It is always worth it to do the right thing: http://t.co/8bmygWEetA #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nWe've got to launch this website to find out what is in it: http://t.co/yg814leYHH #Obamacare\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 18, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHouse Leaders Must Shut Back Door To Comprehensive #Immigration Bill http://t.co/HRe6ZMx0u8 via @BreitbartNews @SenatorSessions\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 18, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThis is one of the best articles I have read about why the effort to #DefundObamacare was necessary: http://t.co/gw26A6M9cf #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 20, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nAmericans are spending more time reading health plan cancellation notices than Democrats spent reading #Obamcare pic.twitter.com/H1aHO5s7es\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 21, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#ButWaitTheresMore Aside from website problems & policy cancellation notices, employers are cutting hours and jobs: http://t.co/zHcjHg0IgD\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#ButWaitTheresMore If website doesn't work, operators are standing by to redirect you back to the broken website: http://t.co/7gTZJe4pPE\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#ButWaitTheresMore You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on #Obamacare website: http://t.co/SLdhni0yil\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#ButWaitTheresMore Many believe technical problems plaguing #Obamacare website indicate the entire law is broken: http://t.co/1NaWssrEps\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 23, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\n#ObamacareInOneWord ShamWow ... without the wow.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 24, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe recent vote to fund government at current levels is touted as compromise, but it was really an act of collusion: http://t.co/0UQLz8VGBK\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 27, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI am announcing new proposals tomorrow as part of the conservative reform agenda referenced in this speech: http://t.co/mIm1FlUv38 #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHere's the text from my speech from yesterday: What's Next For Conservatives http://t.co/y1l5kVijep #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nIt is time for a new, unifying conservative reform agenda: http://t.co/HGg9zAXxSu #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 30, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nLearn more about my Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act, that I introduced yesterday: http://t.co/yHt0zKZNQ6 #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 31, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe president is resorting to scripted acts of deception instead of trying to protect Americans from #Obamacare: http://t.co/Wc7LDltgSn\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 7, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nThe president now acknowledges that people relied on his promises about #Obamacare to their detriment: http://t.co/LRdvYDbTor\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 8, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nMay God continue to bless those who have blessed our nation with their service and sacrifice. Happy Veterans Day! http://t.co/PJRhFDKUv9\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nA new conservative agenda must speak to the challenges and aspirations of those left behind by big government: http://t.co/h8RhSHQOu0 #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 12, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nPeople are hungry for a debate about how conservative principles can be applied to solve the nation's problems: http://t.co/N2ukkFeIqP #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 13, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nFour cyber security experts warn Americans not to use #Obamacare website in House hearing: http://t.co/6oZHmyzat5 #MakeDCListen\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 19, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nToday's decision by the Democrats to break Senate rules is a partisan attack on the very purpose of this institution: http://t.co/jQC5RWxR53\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 21, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI am concerned that we are loosening Iran's sanctions. #Iran doesn't have an inspiring history of keeping its word: http://t.co/ufTN7rq6TB\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 25, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nHappy Thanksgiving! May God continue to bless our great nation.\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 28, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nClick to read why I can't support the #budget deal that was recently introduced: http://t.co/5kI5GFbM0s Please RT if you agree. #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 11, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nI can't vote for a bill I think is going to make our budgetary situation worse rather than better: http://t.co/NFcKf8immc #tcot\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 13, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nToday\u2019s court decision regarding #NSA highlights the constitutional concerns I have raised about metadata program: http://t.co/vKA82cA2dv\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 16, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nBlocking debate on #NDAA violates the rights of the American people to have this bill debated and amended: http://t.co/BRcbbVnmY5 #utpol\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 19, 2013 \r\n\r\n \r\nMerry Christmas from my family to yours! pic.twitter.com/Bj7i3ZzM0O\r\n\u2014 Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 25, 2013", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=319af966-7663-425f-aac9-1c43d411f61b", "Hatch Praises Passage of Defense Bill that Includes Utah Provisions", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes two significant provisions Hatch worked on that impact Utah. NDAA authorizes all budget expenditures for the Department of Defense. The NDAA includes a land transfer of the United States Air National Guard facility at Francis Peak from the federal government over to the State of Utah, which plans to use the structures to support emergency public safety communications such as 9-1-1 emergency response for Northern Utah. Also included in the NDAA is an authorization of funds to construct facilities at Hill Air Force Base critical to the housing and maintenance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\n\u201cProviding for the defense and security of our nation is one of the most important responsibilities Members of Congress have, and I was proud to vote today to ensure our Defense Department and Utah have the tools they need to fulfil their responsibilities to our nation,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cI\u2019m especially grateful to House and Senate Leadership on the Armed Services Committees for including these two provisions important to Utah. By turning over the facility at Francis Peak to the State, we\u2019re ensuring that Northern Utahns in emergency situations can get access to the emergency care they need.\u00a0 And the new construction at Hill will guarantee that the hardworking men and women at Hill have the state of the art equipment they need to service the state-of-the-art next generation aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.\u201d\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\nThe Francis Peak land conveyance is outlined in section 2836 of NDAA, and the military construction projects at Hill AFB is authorized in section 4601. The full bill text of the NDAA can be found HERE.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5f87ff62-a487-48ce-80a9-fab242422536", "Hatch: Obamacare's Problems Are Deeply Rooted in DNA", "2013-12-20", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "In a speech on the Senate floor today, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) outlined ongoing challenges that have plagued the implementation of ObamaCare and said recent updates to the HealthCare.gov website will not resolve the fundamental flaws of the President\u2019s signature domestic policy. \u00a0Hatch also reacted to the Obama Administration\u2019s announcement that Americans will be allowed to replace their canceled health care plans with \u201ccatastrophic\u201d coverage plans.\u00a0 \r\n   \r\n\u201cThe Administration has admitted that it bungled the rollout and tried to cover up for what Politifact dubbed Lie of the Year by passing the buck to states and insurers as to whether individuals would be able to keep their plans for the next year.\u00a0 But, let\u2019s be clear about this: Obamacare\u2019s problems are deeply rooted in its DNA and are far bigger than just a website,\u201d said Hatch.\r\n   \r\nHatch further noted that the Administration\u2019s recent announcement to allow Americans with canceled insurance plans to either buy catastrophic plans or avoid the requirement that they buy health insurance altogether is leading to significant confusion.\u00a0 \r\n   \r\n\u201cIt\u2019s been less than a full day and already this decision is causing confusion among insurers. It will almost certainly do the same for consumers,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cIt seems that the Obama Administration is just making all of this up as they go along.\u00a0 Undoubtedly, many people will suffer the consequences of this ineptitude.\u201d\u00a0\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\nBelow are Hatch\u2019s full remarks delivered on the Senate floor today:\r\n   \r\nMr. President, I rise today to discuss the debacle that is the so-called Affordable Care Act. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anyone in this chamber \u2013 Republican or Democrat \u2013 that would dispute that, thus far, the implementation of this law has been a disaster, particularly with regard to the healthcare.gov website and the President\u2019s promise that \u201cif you like your health care plan you can keep it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\r\n \r\nThe Administration has admitted that it bungled the rollout and tried to cover up for what Politifact dubbed Lie of the Year by passing the buck to states and insurers as to whether individuals would be able to keep their plans for the next year.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nBut, let\u2019s be clear about this: Obamacare\u2019s problems are deeply rooted in its DNA and are far bigger than just a website. \u00a0\u00a0\r\n \r\nIs the website causing the cost of health insurance premiums to go up dramatically?\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIs the website causing businesses to force more and more employees to work part-time?\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIs the website sending out cancellation notices to patients and consumers telling them that their health care plans are no longer available?\u00a0 \r\n \r\nOf course not.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nYet, as the functionality of the website continues to improve, the administration is starting to talk as if EVERY problem with the law has been fixed and that all the other issues going to simply dissolve.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nBut, Mr. President, we know that\u2019s not the case.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIn reality, the problems with Obamacare are only beginning.\u00a0 I\u2019d like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the problems we\u2019re going to be seeing in the future as the President\u2019s health law continues to be implemented.\r\n \r\nI have to say that, when it comes to Obamacare, it\u2019s a little difficult to make predictions.\u00a0 That\u2019s because the administration has gone to great lengths to muddy the waters with delayed deadlines and unilateral policy changes.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nHowever, I think we can look through the opaque waters and identify at least six general areas where we can expect to see major problems in the coming months.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nNumber One:\u00a0 We\u2019re going to continue to see problems with the implementation of Obamacare.\r\n \r\nLike I said, there have undoubtedly been improvements to the website.\u00a0 But there are still issues that are far from resolved.\r\n \r\nLet\u2019s just look at enrollment in the exchanges to see how things are going.\r\n \r\nAs of November 30, roughly 365,000 individuals had enrolled in health insurance coverage through the state and federal exchanges.\u00a0 That\u2019s a small improvement from the numbers we saw at the end of October, but still FAR short of the benchmarks the Department of Health and Human Services had set for enrollment in the exchanges.\r\n \r\nOriginally, HHS touted a goal of enrolling seven million people in the exchanges by March of 2014.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAnd, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, HHS projected that, on the way to reaching that goal of seven million enrollees, they\u2019d enroll roughly half a million people in the first month.\u00a0 Yet, after two months, they were still more than 100,000 people short of that one-month benchmark.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThe same memo projected that they\u2019d have 3.3 million enrollees by the end of the 2013.\u00a0 Yet, if they\u2019re going to reach that target, they\u2019ll have to enroll nearly 10 times as many people as they\u2019ve enrolled so far in just the next week and a half.\r\n \r\nSure, many of these enrollment problems are due to the poorly designed and poorly executed website.\u00a0 But, even with the website\u2019s improvements, it would take a substantial miracle for the administration to meet its enrollment goals for the coming months.\r\n \r\nThere are other significant problems to be concerned about, most notably, those associated with the premium-subsidy program administered by the IRS.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nEarlier this month, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report that found that the IRS has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people\u2019s personal information will likely be at risk.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThere are real questions as to whether the IRS can effectively verify the income of those applying for these subsidies.\u00a0 I have also raised this concern on a number of occasions.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nSimilar tax subsidy programs \u2013 including, for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) \u2013 that are paid out before they are verified have improper payment rates as high as 25 percent.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIf we see the same improper payment rate on these Obamacare subsidies as we do on the EITC, it will end up costing tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years.\u00a0\u00a0  \u00a0\r\n \r\nAs I\u2019ve said in the past, the Obamacare premium subsidies \u2013 with the lack of security and safeguards \u2013 are a fraudster\u2019s dream.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nMr. President, the administration may claim that, with the recent improvements to the healthcare.gov website, all is now right with the world.\u00a0 However, as you can see, there are a number of administrative problems that, even with a functional website, have yet to be resolved.\u00a0 \r\n   \r\nNumber Two: Americans will be left without coverage due to the problems with Obamacare.\r\n \r\nAs a result of the dismal rollout of Obamacare, many Americans \u2013 particularly those that have tried to enroll in the exchanges \u2013 could very well end up being uninsured for a time.\r\n \r\nLast week, an article appeared in the Washington Post that told the stories of people who were forced out of their existing health plans due to Obamacare\u2019s coverage mandates, but are unable to sign up for new plans on the exchange due to the failings of the website.\u00a0\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThe deadline for signing up for coverage that starts on January 1, 2014, is December 23, 2013.\u00a0 Anyone who has been kicked off their plan that is unable to sign up before that date \u2013 which is just a few days away \u2013 will find themselves facing a gap in medical coverage.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nFor the chronically ill or for people with expensive medical conditions, this gap in coverage will be particularly acute.\r\n \r\nThese people are, according to the Washington Post, \u201cObamacare\u2019s biggest losers.\u201d\u00a0 And, yet ostensibly, these are the very people that this law was supposed to help.\r\n \r\nAnother reason that countless Americans may end up seeing gaps in coverage is simply because they will be unable to navigate the ever-changing landscape that is Obamacare\u2019s dates and deadlines.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nDue to the failures of the rollout, the administration has delayed or shifted virtually every deadline associated with obtaining and paying for coverage.\u00a0 For example, like I said, the deadline for enrolling in insurance coverage that starts on January 1st is December 23rd.\u00a0 The deadline for actually getting the first premium payment to insurers is December 31st.\u00a0 Both of these dates have been moved at least once already and could be moved again.\u00a0 On top of that, the administration has issued statements \u201cencouraging\u201d insurers to extend their own deadlines for payment and enrollment.\r\n \r\nThis is on top of the delays in the Employer Mandate, the Shop Exchanges, and the countless other provisions we\u2019ve seen delayed or extended over the past year.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nPeople are bound to be confused by all of these changes.\u00a0 It is nearly impossible for anyone, let alone those with serious medical conditions, to keep track of the ever-changing deadlines the administration keeps issuing.\u00a0 And, with no clarity as to when people should sign up and who they should pay and when, it\u2019s a virtual certainty that many consumers will find themselves uncovered for a period of time through no fault of their own.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThe administration added to all of this uncertainty last night with the announcement that it was going to allow people with canceled insurance plans to either buy catastrophic plans or avoid the requirement that they buy health insurance altogether.\u00a0 It\u2019s been less than a full day and already this decision is causing confusion among insurers. It will almost certainly do the same for consumers.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIt seems, Mr. President, that the Obama Administration is just making all of this up as they go along.\u00a0 Undoubtedly, many people will suffer the consequences of this ineptitude.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nNumber Three:\u00a0 There will continue to be spikes in premiums and other costs.\r\n \r\nWe\u2019ve already seen what\u2019s happening to the price of insurance in the individual market.\u00a0 Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people have already lost their existing health insurance and have found that their options on the exchanges come with much higher premiums.\r\n \r\nThis sticker shock has been widely reported.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nBut, that\u2019s not end of the prices problem.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nUnfortunately, many people are also finding that their out of pocket costs will be dramatically increased thanks to higher copayments and prescription drug costs included in plans on the exchanges. In many cases, it\u2019s difficult for patients to determine which medications are covered on the Obamacare plans.\u00a0 Unlike in Medicare Part D, the Obamacare website does not have a plan finder that would enable consumers to search for plans based on drug coverage.\u00a0 These new costs are particularly high when compared to the insurance plans that were recently canceled.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nBut, it\u2019s not just happening in the individual market.\u00a0 These price spikes are also hitting people with employer-provided insurance.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAccording to a recent poll by the Associated Press, nearly half of Americans with job-based or other private insurance say their policies will be changing next year, mostly for the worse.\r\n \r\nSixty-nine percent say that the cost of their insurance will be going up.\r\n \r\nFifty-nine percent say their annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThe Affordable Care Act did little to rein in the actual cost of health care.\u00a0 When you add in the costs associated with the law\u2019s mandates and regulations, costs are going up, particularly for small businesses, our main job creators.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \r\n \r\nA recent survey of small business owners by the National Federation of Independent Business confirmed that this is already starting to happen.\r\n \r\nIn the survey, 64 percent of small businesses reported that they paid more for employee health insurance premiums in 2013 than they did in 2012.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nSmall business owners consistently cite the rising cost of health care as their top business concern.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThis brings us to the next obvious prediction.\r\n \r\nNumber Four: Millions of people will lose their existing employer-provided health insurance.\r\n \r\nOnce again, we\u2019re all familiar with President Obama\u2019s infamous promise: \u201cIf you like your health care plan, you can keep it.\u201d\r\n \r\nBut, little has been said about the threats Obamacare\u2019s mandates pose to people who get their health insurance from their employers.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nPut simply, the health law was designed specifically to invalidate existing health care plans \u2013 those deemed inadequate by the drafters of the law \u2013 in order to force people into more expensive plans with expanded coverage they don\u2019t necessarily want or need.\u00a0 This applies to both individual market plans and employer-provided plans alike.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \r\n \r\nThe administration\u2019s own estimates \u2013 published in the Federal Register \u2013 predicted that tens of millions of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance will see their plans invalidated by the Affordable Care Act\u2019s mandates and regulations.\r\n \r\nAccording to recent analysis from the American Enterprise Institute, as many as 50-100 million insurance policies in the employer-provided insurance market will see their plans canceled next fall when all business plans must be fully compliant with Obamacare\u2019s insurance mandates.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAt that point, businesses will have to face a difficult choice: Offer a more expensive health care plan to their employees, or send employees into the exchanges.\u00a0 And, as we\u2019ve already seen, that is not a great place to be.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nNumber Five:\u00a0 Health Insurers will either leave the market or face bankruptcy.\r\n \r\nOne of the foundational assumptions made by the drafters of the Affordable Care Act was that the costs to insurers of providing vastly expanded coverage would be offset when more young and healthy patients are brought into the risk pools.\u00a0 Indeed, this is almost the entire basis for the Individual Mandate.\r\n \r\nThe problem is that, so far, this doesn\u2019t seem to be happening.\u00a0 And, there\u2019s good reason to question whether it ever will.\r\n \r\nWith the ever-increasing cost of insurance as a direct result of Obamacare, there will likely be many who opt to stay out of the market altogether.\u00a0 There is ample data to support this conclusion.\r\n \r\nFor example, in a poll released earlier this month from the Harvard Institute of Politics, those in the millennial generation \u2013 the very people that proponents of Obamacare desperately need to add to the insurance pool \u2013 were shown to be highly skeptical of the law.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nIn the poll, a majority of 18-29 year-olds disapproved of the Affordable Care Act and said that it will increase their health care costs.\u00a0 Only 18 percent of respondents in that age group said that they thought the law would improve their health care.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nClearly, the authors of Obamacare thought that the Individual Mandate, along with a strong sense of civic duty, would coerce people into acting against their own interests and paying expanded costs for coverage they don\u2019t necessarily want or need.\u00a0 However, in the real world, where people weigh costs and benefits before making a decision, millions of people are more likely to pay a fine instead of entering a skewed and unstable insurance market where the costs are forever going up.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAnd, without a greatly expanded risk pool of younger, healthier consumers, it\u2019s just not going to be worth it for many insurers to stay in the market.\u00a0 Those insurers who do stay and try to stick it out will do so at greater risk to their financial future.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nInsurers aren\u2019t the only ones facing a dismal economic outlook as a result of Obamacare, which brings me to my final prediction.\r\n \r\nNumber Six: Obamacare will continue to be a drag on business and our overall economy.\r\n \r\nIt isn\u2019t just patients and consumers that are suffering under Obamacare.\u00a0 Employers are also facing difficulties as a direct result of Obamacare.\r\n \r\nAs I\u2019ve discussed here on the floor at length, in anticipation of the Employer Mandate, businesses all across the country have either reduced employment or stopped hiring. \r\n \r\nWorkers that had full-time jobs before the passage of Obamacare are finding themselves moved into part-time work because, under the law, employers will be forced to provide coverage for full-time workers.\r\n \r\nEven the unions, who were among the biggest supporters of the health law when it was being debated in Congress, have come out and said that the law is destroying the 40-hour work week for American workers.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nLast week, the National Association of Manufacturers released its quarterly survey of its members, which showed overwhelmingly that the President\u2019s health care law is having a negative impact on the manufacturing sector.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAccording to the survey, more than 20 percent of manufacturers have cut or decelerated their business investment as a result of Obamacare.\u00a0 Nearly one quarter of them have either reduced employment or ceased hiring.\u00a0 Roughly a third of them say they have reduced their business outlook for 2014 as a result of the so-called Affordable Care Act.\u00a0 And, more than 77 percent \u2013 nearly eight in ten \u2013 of manufacturers cited rising health insurance costs as a primary business challenge.\r\n \r\nIn other words, Mr. President, at a time when our economy is still growing at a sluggish pace and job growth remains lackluster, the President and Democrats in Congress continue to support a health care law that is making America a much more difficult place to do business and to find and keep a job.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAnd, it\u2019s only going to get worse as this wears on.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nMr. President, these are just some of the problems we\u2019re going to see in the coming months as a direct result of Obamacare and they aren\u2019t going to go away so long as the Affordable Care Act remains in place.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nAs I see it, with 2013 coming to a close, the President and his allies here in Congress are at a crossroads \u2013 they have two choices.\r\n \r\nThey can continue to double-down on the same failed policy that is increasing the cost of health insurance in this country and causing millions of people to lose their existing coverage and will continue to wreak havoc well into the future.\u00a0 \r\n \r\nOr, they can, for once, try to work with Republicans on replacing this failure with something that has a real chance of success.\u00a0 I hope that, eventually, they choose the latter.\u00a0 But, needless to say, I won\u2019t keep my hopes up.\u00a0\u00a0 I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221001036/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364797", "Bishop Notes the Importance of Budget\u2019s Passage and Stopping Defense Sequester", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014 Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) today noted the importance of the U.S. Senate\u2019s passage of the budget measure, which avoids another government shutdown, protects military and civilian defense workers in Utah, and reduces the deficit by more than $23 billion. The bill will now head to the President\u2019s desk to be signed into law.\nAccording to a study conducted by George Mason University, defense sequestration in the State of Utah hit more than 8,000 jobs in the defense and aerospace sectors, which had a significant impact on our nation\u2019s military readiness capabilities. \u00a0\n\"With today\u2019s passage, we are ensuring that jobs and critical components of our national defense capabilities aren't crippled as the result of sequestration and another government shutdown. Congress has a responsibility to uphold the fundamental tenet of the Constitution to provide for the common defense of our country. This budget was far from perfect but it does protect our national defense. If\u00a0we had more reasonable leadership amongst Senate democrat leaders, this bill would have likely turned out far better. The bottom line is that our country needs a budget and to get one done, we had to get past Senator Harry Reid. The fact that we have been able to avoid a shutdown, curtail the defense sequester, and reduce the deficit\u00a0is significant,\" said Congressman Bishop.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011348/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364783", "IN THE NEWS: In a Do-Nothing Congress, Rob Bishop Got Stuff Done", "2013-12-18", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "IN THE NEWS: In a Do-Nothing Congress, Rob Bishop Got Stuff Done \n   \n    \n       \n      \n  \n    \n      f \n      t \n      #\n      e\n      \n      \n    \n    \n      \n        Washington,\n        Dec 18, 2013\n      \n       \n    \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n    \n      \n      \n      by Bryan Schott, Today At Utah Policy  \nA new analysis of the 113th Congress finds Rep. Rob Bishop on a very short list of members who were able to get legislation acted on.  The Huffington Post calculated \"efficiency ratings\" for each member of Congress based on the number of bills a member was able to get out of committee in relation to the total amount of legislation they sponsored. Bishop scores a 71% rating for having 12 of his 17 bills pass out of committee.\nREAD MORE HERE:\nUtah Policy.com\nHuffingtonPost.com \n \n\u00a0\n    \n  \n  \n  \n    \n      f \n      t \n      #\n      e", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-the-retirement-of-rep-jim-matheson", "Stewart Statement on the Retirement of Jim Matheson", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov\nWashington, D.C. \u2013 \u00a0After the announcement that Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) will retire next year, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement:\n\"I was surprised to hear the news that Rep. Jim Matheson will be retiring next year. While we may not always agree on legislation, he is a public servant whom I respect and have enjoyed working alongside. He has always worked hard to do what he believes is best for his constituents and the state of Utah. I wish him and his family the best in their future endeavors and know that he will be greatly missed within our delegation.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a248b1ac-4545-4466-bc41-e8ff55153824", "Hatch Statement on Jim Matheson Retirement", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the most senior member of the Utah Congressional delegation, issued the following statement after Congressman Jim Matheson (UT-04) announced he will retire at the end of this Congress:\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\n\u201cDuring my 37 years in the United States Congress, I\u2019d be hard pressed to name someone who I\u2019ve enjoyed serving alongside of more than Jim Matheson. While we didn\u2019t agree on everything, you always knew that Jim was doing what he sincerely felt was best for our state.\u00a0 From public land rights to standing up for Hill Air Force Base to fighting against Obamacare, I\u2019ve been proud to stand with Jim on behalf of Utahns and the values we hold dear.\u00a0 Jim and I have represented Utah together for 13 years, and I\u2019ve had the pleasure of knowing him and his family for much longer.\u00a0 I wish Jim, his beautiful wife Amy, and their sons Will and Harris much love and success in whatever comes next for their family.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=092b83f6-d0e3-4a0c-b6ef-ed112fbc61aa", "December 2013 Tele-townhall: A Year in Review", "2013-12-17", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "A Year in Review \r\nOn the night of Wednesday, December 18 at 7:00 p.m. MT, I will be holding my final tele-townhall of the year.\u00a0 We have had a busy year in Washington and there is much I want to discuss with the people of Utah.\u00a0 As I look forward to where we are headed as a country, I believe we need to come together in an open dialogue about how to best chart a course toward a better future.\r\n\r\nI look forward to having a discussion about your questions and concerns, observations and insight.\u00a0 Below is a list of major developments from the last year that I hope we can touch on during our discussion.\r\n Read the bill before you vote \r\nOne of the first things that Congress did in 2013 was pass a deal to avert the \"fiscal cliff.\"\u00a0 Many Americans were alarmed to find that Congress approved this legislation after only having 6 minutes to read the bill.\u00a0 We saw similar tactics employed when the Senate tried to pass new gun control laws and when it passed the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration reform bill.\u00a0 On October first, millions of Americans started experiencing first-hand the consequences of a law that was passed without many members of Congress ever reading it as Americans across the country started reading the cancelation notices for their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Unfortunately, Americans spent more time reading these cancelation notices than those who voted for Obamacare spent reading the bill.\u00a0\r\nAmericans are right to be outraged.\u00a0 Americans deserve proposals that offer simplicity instead of complexity, that work by promoting freedom and flexibility instead of mandates and coercion, and that can be debated in the open, not negotiated in secret.\u00a0\r\n Cut This, Not That \r\nThroughout the year, Congress has continued to debate spending, deficits and our debt ceiling.\u00a0 At the beginning of this year, we experienced our first round of sequester cuts.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the Administration decided to intentionally make these cuts as painful as possible.\u00a0 Americans saw through this charade, and together we identified areas where a government with $17 trillion in debt can make responsible cuts.\u00a0 Congress is currently working on finalizing the budget, and we still haven\u2019t passed any structural spending reforms that are necessary to avoid the fiscal avalanche I have warned against.\u00a0 This week, the Senate is set to debate the most recent version of a budget that makes more government more expensive. This recent budget deal increases spending, eliminates concrete spending reductions now for theoretical spending cuts a decade from now.\r\n A New Year, A New Day, A New Agenda \r\nThe media likes to focus on the discord, dysfunction, and disruption that come from Washington.\u00a0 Most Americans would be surprised to find out how frequently I work with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle.\u00a0 This year I have co-sponsored several bipartisan bills that would improve our patent system, prevent privacy rights abuse, and limit domestic surveillance.\u00a0 I have also recently been introducing several elements of a conservative reform agenda.\u00a0 We need a positive agenda which lifts and creates opportunities for those trapped in poverty and relieves pressures facing the middle class.\r\n Protecting Our Constitutional Rights \r\nDuring the spring of 2013 we had a robust debate on several gun control proposals.\u00a0 I was encouraged to see so many American people rally to defend their Second Amendment rights.\u00a0 This year we have also had extended debates about due process rights and privacy rights.\u00a0 The freedom of the press has been threatened.\u00a0 The freedom of speech is in the crosshairs of the IRS.\u00a0 States\u2019 rights have been subverted.\u00a0 We are also witnessing the erosion of our religious liberty.\u00a0 In short, it is becoming painfully obvious to Americans that our enormous government has grown at the expense of individual liberty.\u00a0 Americans are finding that a government that costs trillions of dollars to run comes with other staggering costs that aren\u2019t so easy to quantify.\r\n Looking Ahead \r\nLast week, I joined the vast majority of my colleagues to speak out against recent actions by the Senate Democrats to overturn centuries-long precedents in the Senate for confirming presidential nominees.\u00a0 In my speech I emphasized the point that these actions take power away from the American People and shut them out of the political process.\u00a0 I do not believe that the American people will quietly be shut out.\u00a0 I am always grateful to see high levels of engagement among my constituents.\r\nTomorrow\u2019s tele-townhall will be a great opportunity for us to maintain an open dialogue on how we can move forward as a country.\u00a0 I am looking forward to your feedback.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=46ab19ac-62bc-4f26-948b-74653b2818ee", "Hatch on Budget Agreement: \"Sometimes the Answer Has to be Yes\"", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement announcing that he will support the consensus budget agreement negotiated by House and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.):\n\u201cThis agreement isn\u2019t everything I\u2019d hoped it would be, and it isn\u2019t what I would have written. But sometimes the answer has to be yes. The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government. Ultimately, this agreement upholds the principles conservatives stand for and, with Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, it is the best we could hope for. I know that crafting this budget was hard fought, and it\u2019s built on the necessary consensus that reflects divided government.\n\u201cI appreciate the hard work of Paul Ryan, Speaker Boehner, and House Republicans in crafting this commendable compromise that reduces our debt over the long-term, prevents another government shutdown, and stops the budget battles that have rocked America with economic uncertainty and political pessimism. Much more work needs to be done to address the number one drivers of our country\u2019s debt \u2013 our entitlement programs. But my hope is that this budget agreement paves the way to greater stability, lasting deficit reduction, and the political will to tackle those challenges in the near future.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=cbe99252-c98c-4a88-b9a2-5b3b4761eb41", "Lee: Utah to Lose $32 Million in Budget Deal", "2013-12-16", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee announced that under the recent Senate-House budget deal, the state of Utah would lose approximately $32 million in payments from the federal government.\u00a0\r\nUnder the Mineral Leasing Act, the federal government leases federal land for the development of energy, minerals and other materials, and shares the revenue with the states in which the leases are held.\u00a0 The revenue is currently split evenly between the states and the federal government.\u00a0 Section 302 of the budget deal would only decrease what the states receive, leaving the federal portion intact. That would mean a total reduction of $415 million for the states, with roughly $32 million coming from Utah. \u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u201cIt is unfortunate that the budget targets the mineral leasing program,\u201d said Sen. Lee, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. \u201cMany of Utah\u2019s rural communities depend on this funding and we shouldn\u2019t be pulling the rug out from under them when there are so many other wasteful and ineffective programs in the federal government to reform.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-supports-budget-deal", "Chaffetz Supports Budget Deal", "2013-12-13", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-responds-agreement-between-wireless-carries-and-fcc", "Chaffetz Responds to Agreement between Wireless Carriers and FCC", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-wyden-ask-holder-release-unredacted-geolocation-memos", "Chaffetz, Wyden Ask Holder to Release Unredacted Geolocation Memos", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-votes-in-favor-of-the-bipartisan-budget-act", "Stewart Votes in Favor of the Bipartisan Budget Act", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov\nWashington, D.C. \u2013 Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Following the vote, he released the following statement:\n\u201cI voted in favor of the budget deal Chairman Paul Ryan has negotiated.\u00a0 Chairman Ryan is negotiating with a partner that fails to recognize the gravity of the situation our great country is facing and refuses to make the hard choices to put our country on a real path to fiscal sustainability.\u201d\n\u201cThe sequester was a blunt instrument that indiscriminately cut defense spending in an irresponsible manner.\u00a0 This deal reverses those cuts that were focused largely on our defense spending.\u00a0 While I acknowledge that we can, and should, address wasteful spending in our defense department, the sequester was a poor way to address the need for more responsible spending.\u201d\n\u201cChairman Ryan was able to keep in place most of the overall spending cuts from the Budget Control Act while relieving the cuts to defense spending that have hurt our national security and military readiness over the past five years.\u00a0 This deal also allows us to return Congress to regular order--stopping Washington from governing crisis to crisis.\u00a0 Having a budget in place will allow Republicans to hold the President and his federal agencies accountable through the appropriations process.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004303/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364275", "House Passes NDAA", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2013 The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes three provisions benefitting Northern Utah that were included at the request of Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee.\n\u201cIt is important that we pass the NDAA each year. The bill authorizes just about every aspect of our national defense infrastructure and capabilities.\u00a0 This year I am especially pleased that provisions to support Utah\u2019s National Guard, Air National Guard, and Hill Air Force Base have been included. The land conveyance for Camp Williams and the transfer of ownership of Francis Peak Radar Site are important to the state. I am also pleased that we continue to prepare for the arrival of the F-35 at Hill Air Force Base. Hill will not only be home to the first F-35s but will oversee much of the maintenance on all of the other F-35s in the country,\u201d said Bishop. \nThe NDAA directs the Secretary of Interior to convey 420 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land located within Camp Williams to the State of Utah. The land will permit the Utah National Guard to conduct ongoing military training and readiness exercises and will streamline the management and utilization of the property. In addition to securing land for the Utah National Guard, the NDAA authorizes the Utah Air National Guard to transfer the Francis Peak Radar Site to the State of Utah.\u00a0 Allowing the state to save this infrastructure from demolition ensures the continuation of emergency communications (including 911 services to Davis County) and relieves the Utah Air National Guard of its obligations now that its mission for the site has ended. \u00a0Should this not have happened, the Guard would have been obligated under existing Department of Defense (DOD) regulations to dismantle existing infrastructure at a cost to the taxpayers of nearly $2 million dollars. This would have resulted in the loss of communications to the Utah Emergency Network. The NDAA also funds new infrastructure projects at Hill Air Force Base to prepare for the anticipated arrival of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. \n\u201cI sincerely hope that the Senate will consider setting aside their typical partisan antics in order to do what is right for the country. This is not a bill that ought to be leveraged in a political fight. We absolutely must pass this bill to ensure that our defense efforts, including the men and women serving this country, are not disrupted or jeopardized in any way,\u201d Bishop added.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011352/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364311", "House Passes Two Year Budget", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014 The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the budget to authorize the funding of the federal government during fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The budget importantly reduces the deficit by $20-23 billion and protects the military from drastic sequester cuts over the next two years. \u00a0Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) joined with 332 colleagues in support of the measure, noting the relief it will bring to our national defense.  \n\u201cPassing a budget is important and just like families and businesses across the country realize, sacrifices are necessary. In this instance, I would have liked to have seen deeper spending cuts. However, the House, Senate, and White House don\u2019t share the same outlook on fiscal conservatism. The key point, though, is that for the next couple of years this bill relieves the burden of sequester on our nation\u2019s military while still reducing the deficit over the long-term. The hard working men and women who serve our country have shouldered more than their fair share from President Obama\u2019s draconian cuts to defense as well as the President\u2019s sequester cuts to defense. You can\u2019t balance the budget on the back of our military.\u00a0 Stopping these looming sequester cuts is the right thing to do.\u00a0 If we want to get serious about addressing the budget and curbing spending, we need to expand our sights beyond the Department of Defense,\u201d Bishop stated.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1169fd46-3030-49ea-b12d-8f0c776ea717", "Hatch, Baucus Laud Finance Committee Action on Proposals to Strengthen & Improve Child Welfare in America", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today applauded Committee action on a bipartisan package of legislative proposals to improve child welfare in America. The Supporting At-Risk Children Act strengthens and renews adoption incentive and foster care policies; works to combat child sex trafficking; and improves the collection of meaningful child support payments from noncustodial parents living overseas.\r\nThe Chairman\u2019s Mark, which was favorably reported out of the Committee overwhelmingly by voice vote, included key provisions from Baucus that address increased permanency options for kids in foster care, creates a National Advisory Committee on Domestic Sex Trafficking to disseminate best practices, and child support enforcement provisions that help collect funds for tribal children and promote responsible fatherhood. The mark also contains key elements from Hatch\u2019s bill, S. 1518, the Improving Outcomes for Youth At Risk for Sex Trafficking, IO YOUTH. The measure further draws from a number of bipartisan proposals, including trafficking legislation (S. 1118) sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Wis.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as well as child support legislation introduced by Senators Robert Menendez (S. 508) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.)\r\n\u201cGiven the challenges plaguing America\u2019s child welfare and foster care systems, today the Finance Committee acted in a bipartisan way with smart policies that will better protect and improve the well-being of our nation\u2019s most vulnerable children,\u201d said Senator Hatch.\u00a0 \u201cThese proposals \u2013 from improving adoption assistance to taking steps to put to an end to domestic youth sex trafficking \u2013 will help foster a safer environment for our young people to put them on a path to leading happy, healthy, and successful lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these policies are enacted into law.\u00a0\r\n\u201cThe most important factors in a child\u2019s life are a strong family and supportive community.\u00a0 Unfortunately, too many of America\u2019s children lack this vital support network,\u201d Senator Baucus said.\u00a0 \u201cWhen families struggle, oftentimes it is the child welfare system that steps in to help. The legislation this committee approved today will go a long way towards strengthening America\u2019s child welfare system.\u00a0 This Committee\u2019s work on adoption and guardianship, trafficking, and child support will go a long way towards helping kids to get the resources they need.\u00a0 It will restore hope, strengthen families, and support America\u2019s future generations.\u201d\r\nThe Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over grants to states that provide aid and services to families in need of child welfare services, foster care, or adoption assistance. A summary of the Chairman\u2019s Mark of the Supporting At-Risk Children Act can be found HERE.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=dda0cc37-84d9-466c-aec5-94a3435f8b27", "Shutting the American People Out of the Political Process", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Mr. President, I'd first like to thank my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from Wyoming, who is a good friend and a fine example to all those who know him. People from both sides of the aisle can learn and benefit from my friend from Wyoming who as a businessman, later as a mayor, as a devoted husband and father, has served his country well and has served his colleagues in the Senate well. His remarks on the Senate floor tonight have been especially insightful and I've learned something from him this evening as I do every time he speaks. He's one who reached out to me shortly after I arrived here in the united states senate and one who has always shown to me great kindness. And I've always been grateful for that and I look forward to continuing to work with him in the Senate.\r\n\r\nYou know, Mr. President, what's happening in the senate right now is more than just an attempt by the majority to end debate on nominees. It's an attempt to shut out the American people from the political process. You see, President Obama and the majority party in the Senate are so dedicated to enacting their progressive agenda that they'll do anything, even if it means running roughshod over the minority and ignoring the will of the people. Our founding fathers drafted the Constitution to prevent this sort of thing from happening and to protect the rights of all Americans. They devised a constitutionally limited government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government would wield unlimited power.  You see, the whole idea of this system was to prevent the excessive aggregation of power, the excessive accumulation of power within the hands of a few. Under our Constitution, the president's representative function is to faithfully execute the law and not to make it. Congress as a whole alone makes the laws, including a deliberative Senate whose majorities reflect minority views.\r\nSenate Democrats' recent actions are an assault on republican institutions and the protections they provide to all Americans. The current administration and Senate Democrats view the Constitution as an impediment to the enactment of their agenda. This is why the president illegally amended the Affordable Care Act, a law passed by Congress, through executive action instead of after asking Congress to amend it. It's also why Democrats are willing to break the rules of Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate, so that they can more quickly, more easily confirm the president's nominees. Make no mistake, the executive and judicial nominees we're considering will be tasked with implementing and upholding President Obama's agenda. Congress is a representative body and is the only branch of government given the constitutional authority to make laws. We represent the people. When the president illegally changes the law or when he tramples on the rights of the minority in the Senate, he guarantees that the people will have no voice and no representation. These are not trivial matters. These are not matters that we can casually, cavalierly cast aside. These are matters of great importance.\r\nWe have to remember what happened just a few short months ago when we were told on July 2 of this year that President Obama had decided to change the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in several meaningful ways. This, of course, was a law that was passed without consensus. It was passed without any semblance of bipartisanship. It was a law that was passed without a single Republican vote, not a single Republican voted for it in the Senate, and not a single Republican voted for it in the House. All 2,700 pages of this law, a law that wasn't read before it was passed, a law that we were told members would have to pass in order to find out what was in it, this law took effect. And over time, as the American people learned about the law's contents, they didn't grow more favorably predisposed toward the law.\r\nThe law, has, in fact, never enjoyed the support of a solid majority of Americans. But over time, its popularity has tended to diminish. And perhaps seeing this, President Obama on July 2 of this year chose to wield his executive pen in such a way as amend that law. He chose, among other things, to announce that the law contains a number of deadlines, a number of start dates that he would not be enforcing for the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He would, of course, still be enforcing, as of the January 1st start date, the individual mandate, but he would not be implementing or enforcing, at least for the first full year of the law's operation, the employer mandate. Of course he had no authority to do this.\r\nThe Constitution sets in place a system for making law. In order to become law, a legislative proposal has to make its way through the House of Representatives, has to make its way through the Senate, and then it has to be presented to the president, consistent with Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2, of the Constitution before it may become law. But of course once it's law, it's law and a law passed under one administration can't simply be vetoed or fundamentally altered by a subsequent president. In fact, it can't be vetoed or subsequently altered by even the same president who signed it into law in the first place.\r\nAnd yet, that is, in some respects, exactly what happened here. The president modified the law. He was too impatient; too unwilling; too unwilling to defer to the legislative branch; too unwilling to respect the oath that he took uphold, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic; too disrespectful of that very document, or founding document, that has fostered the greatest nation the world has ever known.\r\nNow, he suggested that he needed to do this because the law wasn't ready to be implemented. He later suggested that he did this because he had to do it, because, as he put it, under normal conditions, under more ideal conditions, obviously the thing to do if you wanted to change the law, would be to go back to that branch of government charged with making that law, that branch of government that passed it into law in the first place: Congress. But as he pointed out, these are not ideal circumstances. No, they're not ideal. They're not ideal because he controls only one branch, one division of the legislative branch of government: The Senate. The Senate is under control of his party and the House of Representatives isn't. This can hardly justify this kind of blatant usurpation of legislative authority. This can hardly justify a president, in taking upon himself, the sole task of changing legislation. It is, in fact, an act of legislation unto itself, and yet this is what he did by the stroke of the executive pen. This is exactly the kind of thing that the founding fathers tried to protect against, this kind of unilateral action by executive, this kind of accumulation of power in the hands of a few, or, in this case, the hands of one person and yet this is what he did.\r\nHe's done it on several occasions. Now, some people have suggested, well, if what the president did was wrong, if it was unconstitutional, it wasn't authorized by the Constitution -\u00a0 which it wasn't, it wasn't authorized by the act of Congress, either the Affordable Care Act or some other statute, and it wasn't - then perhaps the courts can and should and must and will remedy the constitutional problem embodied in that act.\r\nWell, there are some problems with that. First of all, as we all know, not every unconstitutional act can necessarily be remedied in court. Many unconstitutional acts are themselves outside the purview of the federal court's ability to review. In some cases, an unconstitutional act might be something that the courts can consider a nonjusticiable question, not subject to the court's authority or something that the courts aren't willing to wade into. In other circumstances, an unconstitutional act might occur in a situation in which no one party is likely to be able to develop and establish Article 3 standing in order to challenge that unconstitutional act. In order to establish Article 3 standing, in other words, in order to establish the right to sue in federal court, Article 3 of the Constitution requires that the plaintiff be able to establish that the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact, and that the injury in fact is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant, and, thirdly, that is subject to redress by the authority of the court. In this circumstance, one must ask the question: Does anyone really have standing? Can anyone really establish the kind of standing in order to challenge the president's refusal to implement and enforce the the individual mandate while refusing, declining to enforce and implement the employer mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.\r\nWho has standing to do that? Who's been harmed by that?\r\nWell, one could suggest, I suppose, that an employer might want to look into that. But most employers, when they would examine the situation, most or all employers would have to acknowledge that they've been given a reprieve. So employers, number one, are not likely to be aggrieved by it, in a sense they're not likely to feel the need to sue. And number two, if they were to try to sue, they wouldly have a very difficult times, it seems for me, establishing in a court of law the fact that they had suffered an injury in fact.\r\nWho else might do it?\r\nMost constitutional scholars would conclude, probably correctly, that a member of congress would lack Article 3 standing under the applicable Supreme Court precedents, under Flast v. Cohen and other Supreme Court precedents. Merely being a member of Congress is not necessarily enough to give a person Article 3 standing. And so I think it's very difficult to reach the conclusion that anyone, at least obviously, has Article 3 standing to sue. So we can't necessarily rely on the courts to be able to undo this constitutional damage, to be able to seek an adequate remedy in a court of law for this blatant insult to the United States Constitution.\r\nEven if somebody could get standing and come in front of an Article 3 federal judge and convince that judge that they've got standing, would that federal court be in the position to dispose of this case within the roughly one-year period in which this provision of the law is effectively suspended. It takes a lot of time to litigate a case all the way through to completion, and I think it's doubtful whether somebody would be able to bring an action in federal court and have it be federally litigated, all the way through to judgment in the roughly one-year period in which it still would be relevant. And if it couldn't get it done in that time period, then it would appear very likely that the case would be rendered moot at that point. And so this, quite simply, is the kind of case in which no federal suit is likely to be brought, and if one is brought, it would likely fail. And so that's yet another reason why we as a Congress ought to be looking very closely at this.\r\nYou see, because this is one of those many instances in which it's possible that someone can violate the U.S. Constitution, here the President of the United States, without the courts being in a position to effectively remedy that constitutional defect.\r\nNow, we too, as members of this body, have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and in my mind that means doing more than simply refraining from that which the Supreme Court of the United States would obviously invalidate. And to my mind, that means more than simply saying, well, if someone has violated the U.S. Constitution, then I'm sure the courts will take care of it. We simply know that isn't true. We know that in many, many circumstances, the courts are not in a position to be able to remedy a constitutional defect, to be able to remedy a blatant insult to the Constitution and an absolute violation of the constitution's provisions.\r\nAnd so we need to continue to hold this president accountable when he fails, quite blatantly in this circumstance, to do that which the Constitution requires. This is a question that I think is particularly important, not only in light of how this particular act of Congress came to be, not only in light of how it was enacted and the fact that it's 2700 pages long and has now resulted in 27,000 pages of regulatory implementing text, but also in light of the fact that it was challenged in court. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was challenged in court as to its constitutionality. But it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a most unusual fashion.\r\nLet's talk about that for just a moment. A number of states and a few others banded together and challenged in federal court a few years ago Congress's power to enact certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Among those provisions that they challenged were the individual mandate. The argument was, Congress lacks the power asserted by Congress in the Affordable Care Act pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 - the Commerce Clause - to tell individual americans that they must buy a product: health insurance. They must buy not just any health insurance but that specific kind of health insurance that Congress in its infinite wisdom deemed absolutely essential for every American to purchase. So they asserted that Congress lacks this power under the Commerce Clause.\r\nThe lawsuit also alleged that Congress lacked the power to tell states that the states had to expand their Medicaid programs and gave the states no choice; that this too, violated the constitution; that it exceeded certain limitations on Congress's power because the courts have long recognized that Congress lacks the power to commandeer the states' legislative and administrative machinery in order to carry out a federal program. Congress has the power to encourage states to do this, but it lacks the power to direct a state to do \"x\" or \"y\" or \"z.\" We can't just tell a state to do something just because we want it to be done. We might be able to persuade the state to do something. We might even be able to fund the state, to offer funding in case a state wants to participate in a given program, but we lack the power to dictate to a state that it do such a thing. In this circumstance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unmistakable in its clarity. It told the states that they had to expand their programs.\r\nSo these two core pieces, these two core aspects of this judicial challenge made their way up through the federal court system, made their way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.\r\nThe court decided these two issues, as I said a moment ago, in a most unusual fashion. Turning to the Commerce Clause issue, the court addressed that issue right after addressing another issue that was sort of a jurisdictional question, an introductory question. The court had to determine, first of all, before it even got to the merits of the constitutional challenge, as to the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it had to address the question of whether or not the individual mandate and the enforcement mechanism attached to it could fairly be characterized as a tax for purposes relevant to the so-called Anti-injunction Act. This is a Civil War-era statute that basically says that anytime someone wants to challenge a tax in federal court, they have to wait until such time as that tax is actually being collected, and then that challenge is brought as against the attempted enforcement of the tax statute. Well, the Supreme Court of the United States using a century's worth of jurisprudence, looked at the language of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, looked at the manner in which it was written and easily concluded -- no, this is not a tax. This is a penalty. And because it's a penalty and it's not a tax, we, the court, may proceed to consider the merits of the arguments brought up in this case, the merits of this challenge brought as to Congress's authority fell none to enact the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.  And so the court quickly dispensed with that issue and reached the merits of the constitutional question before it. The court then went on to conclude that Congress does in fact lack the power under the Commerce Clause, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution to tell individual Americans that they must buy a particular product: health insurance. Not just any type of health insurance, but the specific kind of health insurance that congress told Americans they have to buy in the Affordable Care Act.\r\nWell, the court fairly easy and in my opinion correctly, says that Congress lacks that power because of the fact that the power Congress has to regulate interstate commerce is meaningfully different than the power to compel individuals to enter into commerce, to regulate inactivity, to punish inactivity, to punish the failure to buy a particular product that the people might not want to buy. You see, for a long time, we had this understanding as americans that the power given to Congress was in fact limited. You look at all the authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution. The overwhelming majority of which can be found in Article 1, Section 8. All of these are limited, and they were limited with good reason. They were limited with good reason because that really was -- played a very large part, it played a very significant role in how and why we became a country. We broke away from Great Britain, not just because we grew tired of having a monarch,  but because we grew tired of the authority of parliament, a parliament which not only refused to grant us any representation but also a parliament that refused to acknowledge any natural limit on its power to regulate us. And it did in fact regulate us and it regulated us heavily, mercilessly. It taxed us overwhelmingly, and it refused to recognize any meaningful -- it failed, it refused to recognize any meaningful limit on its own authority.\r\nSo that's one of the reasons why we became our own country, and it's one of the reasons why the founding fathers put in place this system in which this national legislative body would be vested with a few enumerated powers. The founding generation understood that each of those powers would in fact be limited. So much so, in fact, that James Madison described the powers given to Congress as few and defined and characterized those reserved to the states as numerous and indefinite.\r\nDuring the first 140, 150 years or so of our republic's existence, we, as a people, continued to recognize the necessarily limited nature of of Congress's power. Much of that started to change during the new deal era in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the assistance of democratic majorities in the House and in the Senate, pushed afford with a very progressive agenda. This agenda\u00a0 expanded not only the role of government in general but also the role of the federal government in particular. Initially, the Supreme Court resisted, and the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that the powers granted to Congress under the spending clause and the Commerce Clause were in fact limited. But the more F.D.R. And the more Congress pushed back against the Supreme Court, the more the Supreme Court seemed inclined to relent. And ultimately we saw the Supreme Court of the United States back down in the late-1930's from its -- what had been previously more rigorous, more restrictive interpretations of the spending clause and of the Commerce Clause.\r\nThe Supreme Court ended up adopting a set of rules that would basically say that as long as Congress was acting broadly within the field of what could be loosely considered a regulation of interstate commerce, that the courts would stay away from second-guessing Congress's determinations. The court, starting out with a case called NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel in 1937 and culminating with another case, Wickard v. Filburn five years later in 1942 and ended up concluding that Congress may without interference from the courts regulate any activity that when measured and evaluated in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.\r\nRegardless of whether the discrete activity in question might actually occur entirely intrastate, congress would be able to regulate that activity pursuant to its commerce clause authority, regardless of how intrastate that activity might be when viewed in isolation.\r\nUnder this very broad interpretation, Congress's power could, in a sense, be viewed as extending to virtually every aspect of human existence. After all, almost everything we do, when measured in the aggregate, might well be understood to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And yet, even under that broad analysis, that couldn't extend to what was being regulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in the individual mandate provision, which was inactivity. Now remember this is an enormous breadth that we're talking about that the Supreme Court said Congress could, without interference from the courts, regulate under its commerce clause authority.\r\nIn Wickard v. Filburn what was at issue was the cultivation of wheat. Farmers would be severely restricted in how much wheat they could grow, how much they could produce of this or that agricultural commodity and there was a farmer named Roscoe Filburn who committed a grave offense against the republic. His offense did not involve dealing drugs, didn't involve murder or kidnapping. His offense involved growing too much wheat. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than Congress in its infinite wisdom viewed appropriate for any american to grow. And he was fined many thousands of dollars, which during the new deal era was an enormous amount of money. Because of the fact that he grew too much wheat.\r\nNow, Roscoe Filburn was fortunate in that he had access to some good lawyers, and his lawyers advised him on this and they represented him aggressively and competently in court and what they said, what they argued relying on true facts was that yes, sure, our client, Roscoe Filburn, did, in fact, grow wheat in excess of the limit imposed by federal law. But, significantly, that wheat, the amount of wheat that he grew in excess of the grain production limit applicable to his farm that year, was grain that never entered interstate commerce. In fact, it never entered commerce at all. You see, that grain never even left Roscoe Filburn's farm. He used it on his farm to feed his family, to feed his livestock, and he used the remainder, held onto the remainder of it to use as seed for a subsequent planting season. So in a very real sense that wheat was not part of interstate commerce at all.\r\nNevertheless, the Supreme Court of the United States lacking nothing in imagination said that even that wheat was within Congress' almighty grasp within the all-knowing, wise reach of the federal sovereign.  What the court said was that the wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn in excess of the grain production quota was itself something that when viewed in the aggregate could substantially affect interstate commerce. In other words, if lots of farmers everywhere just like Roscoe Filburn grew too much wheat, even if their wheat never entered interstate commerce, the growing of all that excess wheat would inevitably have an impact on the supply and the demand and ultimately the price and the availability of wheat on the interstate market. Therefore, even that wheat which was entirely locally grown and locally consumed would be subject to Congress's reach. Wickard v. Filburn thus erected an extraordinarily low barrier for Congress to clear in establishing that it had properly invoked its authority under the Commerce Clause and yet even that extraordinarily low barrier was high enough to stop Congress from acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause in enacting the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.\r\nThus ended the Supreme Court's analysis in June, 2012, when it ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional limits under the Commerce Clause iin enacting the individual mandate. Significantly, this was the third time in about seventy-five years, only the third time since Wickard v. Filburn in which the Supreme Court recognized that Congress had overstepped its limits under the Commerce Clause.\r\nIt was a rare thing. it was foreseeable because the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went so far beyond anything that had been seen before. And yet it was only the third time in the last 75 years in which that had happened.\r\nBut then something different happened - something that very few expected, or that very few people on either side of the aisle in this body, on either side of the political divide in America generally expected. After concluding that Congress lacked this power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court under the pen of Chief Justice John Roberts, proceeded to analyze the government's backup argument. That is the argument that even if as the court had now concluded Congress lacked the power to do this under the Commerce Clause, that Congress still had the power to do this consistent with its power to impose taxes.\r\nThe court went on to conclude that Congress did have this power. Strangely, the court also went on to conclude that that's essentially what Congress had done here. Now, this was odd on many levels. Number one, the court had already concluded as it had to conclude in order to proceed to the case and in order to exercise jurisdiction over this case, prior to the implementation of the law, prior to the collection of this alleged tax, that it was, in fact, not a tax but a penalty. So it was very strange that the court was now basically saying   \"Okay, it's a penalty and not a tax for some purposes, but it's a tax and not a penalty for other purposes.' And yet that's what the court did.\r\nIt was also strange that the court did this for the additional reason that Congress had considered proposals, legislative proposals in a different, earlier iteration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would have enforced the individual mandate by means of a tax. Congress considered language that would have done that. Congress knew and still knows how to enact legislative language that imposes a new tax. And yet when it tried to use that language, language that under a hundred years' worth of jurisprudence everyone understands would have imposed a tax, Congress could not get the votes to pass it, even in what was then a Congress in which the Democratic party dominated both houses.\r\nEven in that Congress, they tried but failed to get the requisite number of votes to pass the individual mandate enforced by means of a tax. They couldn't do it. And it was therefore really odd that the Supreme Court of the United States would interpret what Congress couldn't pass as a tax in such a way as to make it a tax for constitutional purposes when Congress itself didn't have the votes to do it.\r\nNow, in order to pass legislation raising revenue -- in other words, in order to pass legislation imposing a new tax, the Constitution requires that legislation of that sort originate in the House of Representatives. Why is this? I think most who look at the issue would agree it has a lot to do with the fact that the House of Representatives is the entity within our federal government structure that is by design most representative of the people.\r\nIn the Senate we have elections every six years. In the House it's every two years. And from the outset, the House was the body in which the people were represented because, of course, at the outset the Senate was the body in which the states were represented, that's no longer the case, where we are directly elected by the people. But it was always the case and still is the case that tax legislation must start in the House. Because it's the body closest to the people and most responsive to the needs and the desires and the concerns of the people.\r\nIt's therefore quite ironic that this law, this tax as the Supreme Court called it, was put into place as a tax not by the body within the federal government that is most accountable to the people, the House of Representatives, but instead by the body within the federal the federal government that is the very least accountable to the people, the courts, the Supreme Court of the United States. This I believe amounted to a usurpation of constitutional authority. This I believe amounted to a betrayal of the judicial oaths of the five robe-wearing men and women who signed on to that opinion.\r\nThey did not have the power to legislate. They did not have the power to create a tax. They did not have the power to create out of whole cloth tax language out of penalty language, language that under a century's worth of jurisprudence the court's own precedents carrying stare decisis effect made clear was a penalty, not a tax and that's what the court did.\r\nNow, when people discover this, when they learn about it, when they hear about it, when those who dare to plow through the Supreme Court's opinion and understand what happens, they will inevitably ask how can the court do this? Does the court have that power, the power to legislate, the power to impose a tax where Congress has not chosen to impose a tax? No, the court doesn't have that power. How can the court do that? why did the court do that? Well, the court did that because it could. Not because it could in the sense it had the constitutional power to do it but because the court as an exercise of raw political power chose to do so and did do so.\r\nThis was a tragic day in American history. A day that we should not soon forget. And a day that we should do all in our power to remedy. This decision was wrong, it was unconscionable. As a matter of jurisprudence, it was unforgivable.\r\nThe court then went on to address the challenge related to Congress's power to compel the states to expand their Medicaid programs. Now, Medicaid as we all know is a program that is partially funded by the federal government but administered and partially funded by the states. In the Affordable Care Act, Congress directed the states, whether the states were so inclined or not, to expand their Medicaid program. It gave them no choice but to expand them and to expand them to a very significant degree - to expand them in a way that would bring about not only significant costs to the states over the years but also very substantial administrative burdens as well. And yet the Affordable Care Act left the states with no choice. You must do this. Just do it because we're Congress and we're all powerful and have you to do it because we say so.\r\nWell, there is this anti-commandeering principle embedded within our constitutional jurisprudence in the enumerated powers doctrine, partially in the tenth amendment as well that Congress lacks the power to commandeer a state's administrative or legislative machinery to put in place, to legislate, or to administer a federal program. The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that Congress had violated this anti-commandeering principle in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And it did so in a way that left the states with no other alternative. So this was the second constitutional defect. In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  But here again the Supreme Court chose to rewrite the law a second time in order to save it. Ordinarily what a court would do in this circumstance -- in that circumstance after concluding that Congress has violated this anti-commandeering principle and this aspect of the Affordable Care Act was, in fact, unconstitutional, the court would be under an obligation to go into what's called severability analysis, to analyze whether, to what extent or in what way Congress might have intended to allow the rest of the statute's provisions to operate independently notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the provision deemed invalid by the court. In this case, quite stunningly, the Supreme Court engaged in no such analysis. It never reached the severability question even though it had been the question of extensive briefing and conversation at oral argument. The supreme court didn't get into severability at all. The court decided that it just didn't need to. It didn't need to because the court rewrote the statute in order to make it constitutional. The court wrote into the law a carveout provision that simply said we're going to read this law as though it gave the states an optout provision, as though it gave the states an option of deciding whether or not to expand their own Medicaid programs.\r\nThe only problem is, the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contained absolutely no such language. You can read through all 2,700 pages of that law and you won't find any opt-out provision like what I just described. No, the court created this, too, from whole cloth. The court did this in the absence of any text. This, too, amounted to a betrayal of the judicial oaths of those who signed their names to that opinion. This, too, was a blatantly unconstitutional act that was an insult to the high judicial office that those individuals occupy. That, too, is an insult to the constitutional system which has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known.\r\nWe can't lightly overlook crimes against the Constitution. We can't lightly overlook the usurpation of authority by the few. We can't lightly overlook that laws, our most fundamental laws, have been openly flouted in this case, nor will we soon forget the fact that that has occurred here. So all of these are reasons why some of us feel so strongly, so passionately that this law, started with some unconstitutional premises and has had its constitutional defects compounded over and over and over again, as you've had the supreme court of the united states rewriting it not just once but twice in order to save it. And as you've had the President of the United States rewriting it, in effect legislating through the stroke of the executive pen, several times now because, among other things, he says the law is not ready to implement. He doesn't have the power to legislate on his own any more than the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to legislate. Any more than the Queen of England has the right to legislate for the United States of America.\r\nThe legislative power belongs here in the Congress of the United States and we must exercise that power and when someone else takes that power from us, when someone else independently exercises the legislative power, we must guard it jealously. We must protect it. I don't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. I don't care whether you are President Obama's biggest fan or his most aggressive critic. The office that we occupy here requires us, compels us to defend our institutional prerogative as federal lawmakers. And when someone else exercises that power, the power that does not belong to them but to us, we must protect it. Not because it is ours but because it belongs to those we represent. It belongs to those who elected us to serve here, those who elected us and not someone else to make laws.\r\nWhenever to any degree we overlook the fact that someone else has legislated, someone not vested with law-making authority, we do ourselves and our country a disservice, and we reflect a certain cavalier disregard for the oath that we've taken to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which was put in place to make the men and women of the United States of America free.\r\nThere's another issue related to all of this that I think we need to touch on here, which is the issue of excessive delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch. You see, in some circumstances, we have a situation in which Congress may voluntarily relinquish some of its law-making power to the executive branch. I say \"it may do that,\" \"it can do that.\" That's not necessarily saying that it should do that.\r\nPerhaps the most influential political philosopher in America's founding era was Charles de Montesquieu. Charles de Montesquieu wrote that the power to legislate is the power to make laws, not the power to make legislators. He recognized, I think, that there was a natural temptation among elected lawmakers to want to pass the buck along to someone else, to want to give to someone else the task of making law. And we do this sometimes when we pass an extraordinarily broad law and then we direct some executive branch agency to simply fill in the gaps, to effectively make the laws.\r\nThe Affordable Care Act is replete with instances in which this kind of thing occurs, in which certain broad parameters are spelled out and in which we then say to this department or that department that it will have the power to promulgate rules carrying the force of generally applicable law which that same department or that same agency will then have the power to enforce. That's part of how we end up with 20,000 pages of implementing regulations already under Obamacare. 20,000 pages and counting. Because we've got a lot of instances in which we've delegated de facto law-making power.\r\nThat, too, presents it's own kind of constitutional problem, not necessarily a constitutional problem that the courts are inclined to recognize but a sort of constitutional problem nonetheless. Because the more that we delegate de facto law-making power to an executive branch agency, the less we see that anyone is accountable to the people for our laws.\r\nOne can imagine, for example, if taken to an extreme, what this could look like. Let's suppose that we just one day decide, you know, we're tired of debating and discussing and voting on and having to pass laws that are controversial, laws that are specific, laws that require us to get our hands dirty, laws that require us to make difficult decisions. So once and for all we're going to pass a law that everyone can get behind. It will be called \"The Law of Good Laws.\" A law that says we shall have good laws. And we hereby delegate to the herewith created U.S. Department of Good Laws the power to make and enforce good laws. We then pass that and we give this Department of Good Laws the power to issue regulations and to enforce those regulations. This is actually not all that different from what we do all the time. And what's been done under Obamacare to a very significant degree, about 20,000 pages regulations so far, and that's still building.\r\nOne of the reasons this is a problem, you see, is because when the people don't like our laws, they can come to us and they can hold us accountable for laws that we may have voted to enact. They can choose to replace us with someone else, someone who wouldn't vote for that kind of law the next time they have the chance. But when the law they don't like is not one that we have enacted but is instead one that has been promulgated by an executive branch agency, the people come to complain to us. In that circumstance we say, \"Well, don't look at me; go to the executive branch agency, they're the ones that did it.\" They see that the people occupying the executive branch agency as well-mannered, well-educated, and well-intentioned, and well-groomed as they might be are not subject to elections. They can't be voted out. They can't be fired by the people. That's why we're entrusted with the law-making power. It is not necessarily that we're the best-equipped in every way to do it. It's that we stand subject to elections in six-year intervals in the case of the Senate, in two-year intervals in the case of the House of Representatives.\r\nIt's yet another reason why we ought to be more resistant, more concerned when it comes time to enacting legislation that delegates an excessive amount of de facto law making power to an executive branch agency. Yet another reason why I think we need to pass something akin to the proposal that has been introduced as the REINS Act. This act would say that any time an executive branch agency issues a new rule, a new regulation deemed by the Office of Management and Budget to constitute a major rule, that that major rule will take effect if and only if it's first passed into law by the House, and by the Senate, and then signed in to law by the president. Then and only then, do I think that we'll be able to start to reclaim that legislative power which is rightfully ours and that, more importantly, the American people will be able to hold Congress accountable for the responsibilities properly given to Congress under the Constitution. This is about allowing the people to be governed by those that they choose.\r\nWhen we delegate excessively our own law-making power to executive branch agencies, we deprive the people of of their right to have their laws written and enacted by men and women of their own choosing.\r\nNow, this is important, and it should be important, to people of all political backgrounds, people at every end, at every step, at every stage along the political continuum. This is an issue that is neither Democratic nor Republican, it is neither liberal or conservative. It is simply american. When we pass laws, we pass laws through democratically elected senators and representatives. That we don't do it through nameless, faceless bureaucrats who, regardless of how well-educated and well-intentioned they may be, do not serve the people in the sense that they're not elected by the people. They're not subject to reelection. They're not subject to dismissal by the people. We must hold that power here. That power belongs to us, not to bureaucrats. It belongs to us, not the president. It belongs to us and not to nine judges wearing black robes across the street in the Supreme Court of the United States.\r\nThese are some of the things that are at stake. These are some of the reasons why it's so significant that we have this prolonged, protracted effort by the President of the United States to usurp power that is not his own. We must not facilitate the president, in his ongoing effort to aggregate power, to accumulate power within the executive branch of government that is not his own. That's why we need to stand up to the president against some of these nominees that he pushed forward again and again and again trying to trample over the rights of the minority. We have to do that. We have an obligation to stand up to the president, especially because he's taking power that is not his own and he's doing it, among other things, to move forward with Obamacare, a law that a majority of the American people have never approved of and a law that the American people are growing steadily more against every single day.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=13c4f685-47e6-408f-a8c9-053a324217a5", "Lee Names Derek Brown as Deputy Chief of Staff/State Director", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee announced that current Utah State Representative Derek Brown has accepted the position of Deputy Chief of Staff and State Director for the senator\u2019s office.\u00a0 Rep. Brown will resign his seat in the Utah Legislature effective January 2, 2014 and will assume his new role on January 3rd.\u00a0 Senator Lee\u2019s Chief of Staff Boyd Matheson had been filling the State Director duties for the past year.\r\nSenator Lee commented, \u201cI am thrilled to have Derek Brown on board.\u00a0 I have known him since I helped recruit him to Sidley & Austin 11 years ago and look forward to what he will contribute to our staff, our constituents and leaders within the State of Utah.\u00a0 Derek is a great talent and understands the legislative process as well as critical functions of a senate office.\u201d\r\nIn addition to his stellar legal career, Derek Brown served as legal counsel to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch and former U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (Full biography below).\r\n\u201cDerek\u2019s appointment is another important step in the strategy we began last year to move Senator Lee\u2019s positive reform agenda forward,\u201d said Senator Lee\u2019s chief of staff Boyd Matheson. \u201cDerek will be an integral part of our senior staff in executing our strategy and connecting it to the people of Utah.\u201d\r\n\u201cWhile it was a difficult decision to step down from the state legislature, joining Senator Lee and his team at this time with this agenda is an amazing opportunity,\u201d said Brown. \u201cThe Senator has established himself as a national thought leader and important player in the Republican Party.\u00a0 I am excited to work with community, government and business leaders around the state to help them engage with the senator on this important agenda for Utah and the country.\u00a0 It is a critical time in our history and Senator Lee has put forward positive solutions I believe are certain to be part of solving many of the challenges we face as a nation. \u201d\r\nSenator Lee concluded by saying, \u201cI have extraordinary staff in Washington and Utah who are all committed to serving the people of Utah.\u00a0 I have appreciated Boyd pulling double-duty for the past year and value his vision, wisdom and insight.\u00a0 With Derek joining the team we are well positioned for the next phase of our efforts.\u201d \r\n\r\nDerek Brown\u2019s Biography\r\nRepresentative Derek Brown currently serves in the Utah House of Representatives, where he serves as Vice Chair of the Rules Committee, Chair of the Occupational Professional Licensing Review Committee, and on both the\u00a0Business/Labor\u00a0and Law Enforcement Committees. \u00a0He is also Of Counsel with Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard Moss LLP. \u00a0Derek previously served as Counsel for Senator Robert F. Bennett in Washington, D.C., counsel for Senator Orrin Hatch in Salt Lake City, Utah, and practiced constitutional and appellate law with\u00a0Sidley\u00a0Austin\u00a0LLP in its Washington, D.C. office. \u00a0He also served as law clerk for Judge Ruggero Aldisert on the United\u00a0States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. \u00a0He has taught as an Adjunct Professor of law at Brigham Young University since 2007. \u00a0He currently serves as the Board President for the Utah Connections Academy, on the Board of Trustees for the Hale Center Theater, and on the Advisory Board for Intermountain Homecare. \u00a0He and his wife, Emilie de Azevedo, have four children.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=1e3f965f-0aec-45f2-827b-ccdec0af9815", "Lee Introduces Act to Protect Religious Liberty", "2013-12-12", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee and eleven original cosponsors introduced legislation to protect religious organizations from discrimination by the federal government for supporting traditional marriage.\u00a0 The \u201cMarriage and Religious Freedom Act\u201d bars the government from denying any person or group tax-exempt status for exercising their religious conscience rights. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Vitter, Rubio, Roberts, Hatch, Coburn, Blunt, Inhofe, Wicker, Risch, Cochran and Graham.\r\n\u201cThis bill protects the rights of individuals and organizations from religious discrimination by the federal government,\u201d said Senator Lee. \u201cThose who believe in the traditional definition of marriage deserve respect and tolerance.\u00a0 It is critical that we clarify the law to ensure that their fundamental civil liberties are not at risk.\u201d\r\nA companion bill, HR 3133, was introduced in the House by Rep. Raul Labrador and has 92 cosponsors.\r\nThe \u201cMarriage and Religious Freedom Act\u201d has been endorsed by the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, National Organization For Marriage, Heritage Action, Concerned Women For America, The Ethics And Religious Liberty Commission Of The Southern Baptist Convention, and Liberty Counsel Action.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6c80f890-66af-4bcc-aff0-ecd144cb0aac", "Lee Opposes House-Senate Budget Deal", "2013-12-11", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Lee released the following statement on the budget deal recently announced by the Chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees:\u201cRather than enacting reforms to make government more efficient, the budget deal makes more government more expensive. Sequestration is far from ideal, but at least it forced Congress get serious about excessive spending. This deal cuts into the modest gains taxpayers have won since 2011, by trading concrete spending reductions over the next two years for theoretical spending cuts a decade from now. In the meantime, the deal raises taxes on all air travellers, so that Congress can continue to ignore both waste in discretionary spending and the ticking fiscal time-bomb of our entitlement programs. \u201cI do not envy House Republicans in their task of negotiating a budget with a Senate majority and president hostile to the very idea of having one. But the deal they have struck is not one I can support. \u201cIf there is a silver lining in this deal, it at least further confirms the need for Republicans to finally develop a comprehensive conservative reform agenda. Real reform involves not simply cutting dysfunctional programs, but fixing them so government doesn\u2019t cost so much in the first place. And as Democrats continue to hide from those reforms at the behest of their special-interest clients, Republicans must begin to advance our ideas openly and transparently, not behind closed doors up against artificial deadlines set by the forces of the status quo.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=267cfef6-86a3-4fb6-b651-88eeeaabb9d2", "Hatch Statement at Senate Finance Committee Hearing Considering John Koskinen For IRS Commissioner", "2013-12-10", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today delivered the following remarks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing considering the nomination of John Koskinen to serve as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS):\r\n\r\n\r\n(Click the image above to watch Hatch\u2019s remarks)\r\nToday we are here to discuss the future of the Internal Revenue Service and to hear testimony from President Obama\u2019s nominee to head that agency, John Koskinen.\u00a0 \r\nMr. Koskinen, I don\u2019t think that I have to tell you that, if you are confirmed, you will have a difficult job ahead of you.\u00a0 \r\nThe IRS is one of the most powerful agencies in our government.\u00a0 Consequently, it is both feared and loathed by millions of Americans.\u00a0 \r\nThat being the case, it is vital that the IRS maintain its credibility. The American people should be able to trust that the IRS will enforce our nation\u2019s tax laws without bias or prejudice.\u00a0 Any hint of impropriety on the part of the IRS or its leadership damages its credibility and that of our entire government.\u00a0 \r\nUnfortunately, over the last few years, the credibility of the IRS has been eroded through actions taken by the IRS itself and the agency has, in large part, lost the trust of the American people.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \r\nAs proof, one needs to look no further than the IRS political targeting scandal currently under investigation by this committee.\u00a0 \r\nWhen this scandal was revealed, President Obama said, \u201cI have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.\"\u00a0 \r\nSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed similar views on the Senate floor, stating: \u201cI have full confidence in the ability of Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee to get to the bottom of this matter and recommend appropriate action.\u201d\u00a0 \r\nI share both President Obama\u2019s desire to find out exactly what happened and Leader Reid\u2019s view of the Finance Committees investigative abilities.\u00a0 Indeed, if there is one thing we should all be able to agree on, it is that that IRS should enforce the tax laws as they are written by Congress without consideration of political views.\u00a0 \r\nThat being the case, I had hoped to hold off on proceeding with this nomination until the Finance Committee\u2019s bipartisan investigation had concluded.\u00a0 \r\nThe confirmation of an IRS Commissioner should not, and must not, be a partisan issue.\u00a0 Like I said, with an agency this powerful, the leadership should have the confidence of members of both parties.\u00a0\u00a0 I had hoped that the next commissioner would begin his time with the benefit of the findings of our investigation so that he would be in a better position to fix the problems we\u2019ve uncovered and to move the agency forward with strong bipartisan support.\u00a0 \r\nChairman Baucus has chosen to go a different direction, which is, of course, his right.\u00a0 \r\nMy hope is that this will not impede our efforts.\u00a0 \r\nMr. Koskinen, I hope that today you will commit to continuing the cooperation the committee has enjoyed thus far in its investigation and that you\u2019ll encourage others to do the same.\r\nAs far as I\u2019m concerned, the top priority for the next IRS Commissioner should be to restore the agency\u2019s damaged credibility with the American people and their trust that the actions taken by the IRS are fair and impartial.\u00a0 Toward that end, it is essential that we continue to receive full and open cooperation in our investigation.\u00a0 \r\nThere are many other issues the next leader of the IRS will have to address.\u00a0 \r\nFor example, there is the IRS\u2019s significant role in the implementation of Obamacare.\u00a0 If what we\u2019ve seen thus far is any indication, this is going to be a difficult proposition, both in terms of operation and enforcement.\u00a0\u00a0 \r\nJust last week the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report that found that the IRS has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent Affordable Care Act premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people\u2019s personal information would be at risk.\u00a0 \r\nInsurers and others have raised questions about the income verification for the premium subsidies.\u00a0 I have also raised this concern on a number of occasions.\u00a0 Similar tax subsidy programs \u2013 including, for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit \u2013 have improper payment rates as high as 25 percent.\u00a0 Can we expect the same for the Obamacare premium subsidies? \r\nThese are just a few of the many potential issues IRS will be facing as implementation continues.\r\nOn top of that, there are the proposed regulations addressing the political activities of tax-exempt organizations.\u00a0 These proposals have been controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the widespread doubt as to whether the IRS is able to perform its duties in an independent, non-partisan fashion.\u00a0 \r\nMr. Koskinen, I hope to get a sense of your views on these and other issues during the course of today\u2019s hearing.\u00a0 \r\nLike I said, the IRS is an agency rife with problems, most of which are self-inflicted.\u00a0 If you are confirmed, I hope that you will work jointly with Congress \u2013 and with members of both parties \u2013 to fix these problems.\u00a0\u00a0 Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=a261beb0-21b7-46d7-871a-03cbaf2635fe", "The Greatest Snow on Earth", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "With record breaking snowfall over the past few weeks, it\u2019s no wonder Utah is said to have \u201cThe Greatest Snow on Earth.\u201d The Utah ski season is here and along with the holidays, comes the famous powder snow that brings so much joy while providing attractions for Utahns and visitors throughout the state. Although many winter events are available, the popular legacy of downhill skiing always seems to be a Utah favorite.\r\nBefore skiing became a sport for Utah, it acted as a means of travel across Utah\u2019s mountains. In the early 1870\u2019s, miners and trappers would navigate their way across the snow covered canyons. This rich heritage brought over by Norwegian immigrants quickly transformed into a recreational activity for those seeking the thrill of speed or even the beautiful landscape views of the valleys below.\r\nUtah is especially lucky to have 14 world-class ski and snowboard resorts. Most of these resorts are within close proximity of each other, allowing skiers to visit several throughout the season. For 2013-2014, Forbes Magazine named four Utah ski resorts among the top 10 in the nation while Ski Magazine named eight Utah ski resorts among the top in the west. Along with these awards, we are also grateful for the boost skiing gives to Utah\u2019s economy through tourism and the need for equipment to help carry out the ski season.\r\nAlthough skiing is the most popular winter activity, there is much more to snow sports for Utah. Cross-country skiing, ice skating, downhill tubing and snowmobiling are some other winter sports available.\r\nOver a decade ago, Salt Lake City, Utah was proud to host the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Being chosen for the ability to hold games with the conditions needed, Utah became the center of the sports world and since then, the legacy venues used are still available.\r\nThe Utah Olympic Park, located near Park City, was the home of the training site for many Olympic athletes. Still acting as an official US Olympic Committee facility, visitors can watch aspiring Olympians train, participate in a sports camp and even take a 70 mph ride on a bobsled. The park also houses two museums, highlighting the 2002 games as well as ski history.\r\nThe Utah Olympic Oval, located in Kearns, is where the world speed skating took place during the games. Today, the 400-meter track is open to anyone who would like to take a class in figure skating, curling, or take a lap around the rink.\r\nSoldier\u2019s Hollow located in Heber Valley, was another location for the games and still contains cross-country ski trails as well as long tubing lanes. This Nordic skiing venue is enjoyed by many year-round.\r\nThe Peaks Ice Arena in Provo, has two Olympic-size ice sheets where visitors can participate in ice skating, ice hockey, floor hockey, figure skating and broom ball. The Ogden Ice Sheet was the site of the Olympic Curling events. This year-round community ice recreational center is especially fun during the winter time.\r\nI am proud to represent such an incredible state with vast history during this season. I support the winter sports industry and all it does for Utah\u2019s economy. Whether you are a participator of these sports or would rather watch these events from the inside, I hope we all remember the great place we live that holds \u201cThe Greatest Snow on Earth.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-the-passing-of-nelson-mandela", "Stewart Statement on the Passing of Nelson Mandela", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov\nWashington, D.C. \u2013 Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement regarding the passing of Nelson Mandela:\n\"I'm saddened to hear of the passing of Nelson Mandela. He was a courageous leader who did so much for South Africa and was an example to so many around the world. On a personal note, I'll always remember some great words spoken by Mr. Mandela, 'I\u00a0learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.' I\u00a0send condolences to his family and to the people of South Africa.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004329/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363564", "Bishop Calls on Secretary Jewell to Further Examine the National Park Service\u2019s Erroneous Comments on Hydraulic Fracturing", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Sally Jewell today received a letter from Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, requesting further information about the protocol and review process for the submission of official comments by the DOI and related agencies.\nThe letter stems from the recent discovery that the National Park Service used unsubstantiated data from a New York Times opinion piece in official comments made to the Bureau of Land Management.\u00a0 In a September 05, 2013 letter to NPS Director Jon Jarvis, Congressman Bishop highlighted that the comments from the NPS to the BLM used the erroneous information to make a case against hydraulic fracturing. Congressman Bishop recently received a letter from Director Jarvis stating that the comments were made in error and would be withdrawn. \u00a0\nExcerpts of the letter:\nThe NPS comments enabled the false narrative that hydraulic fracturing is not regulated and is unsafe.\u00a0 On August 29, 2013, just six days after the NPS comments were filed, the Independent Petroleum Association of America outlined, in a letter to the NPS, the plethora of inaccuracies included in the NPS comments.\u00a0 On September 6, 2013, I sent a letter to NPS Director Jarvis requesting the withdrawal of the comments because of the well-documented inaccuracies.\u00a0 \nIt\u2019s further troubling that the NPS lacks a system of data accountability and quality control.\u00a0 Director Jarvis wrote in the November 13, 2013 letter: \u201cI did not, nor did anyone from management, review the comments\u201d.\u00a0 This is very puzzling and raises further questions and concerns.\nview the letter here", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044459/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-innovation-act-make-reforms-our-patent-system", "House Passes Innovation Act to Make Reforms to our Patent System", "2013-12-05", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 The House of Representatives today approved H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 325-91. This bipartisan bill takes steps to combat the ever increasing problem of abusive patent litigation.\nHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman and chief sponsor of the Innovation Act Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) applauded the bill\u2019s passage.\nChairman Goodlatte: \u201cIn recent years, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of weak or poorly-granted patents by so-called patent trolls to file numerous patent infringement lawsuits against American businesses with the hopes of securing a quick payday.\u00a0 Everyone from independent inventors, to start-ups, to mid and large sized businesses face this constant threat.\n\u201cThe enactment of the Innovation Act is something I consider central to U.S. competiveness, job creation, and our nation\u2019s future economic security.\u00a0 The bipartisan legislation takes meaningful steps to address the abusive practices that have damaged our patent system and resulted in significant economic harm to our nation.\u00a0 I am encouraged by the overwhelming support the Innovation Act received in the House and I look forward to working with the Senate to see that patent litigation reform legislation is signed into law.\u201d\nRepresentative DeFazio: \u201cI started working on the patent troll issue a few years ago when a small company in my district was forced to delay a product launch and put off hiring because the owner was fighting a patent troll that wanted several hundred thousand dollars to make their lawsuit go away.\u00a0 This is not a unique situation. Patent trolls extract at least $29 billion a year from innovators. Today\u2019s passage of the Innovation Act in the House brings us a step closer to stopping this lucrative extortion racket. I hope that the Senate will promptly take up this bipartisan bill.\u201d\nSubcommittee Chairman Coble: \u201cI\u2019m pleased the House approved H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act.\u00a0 This bipartisan proposal will curb the tide of egregious patent lawsuits.\u00a0 By fortifying our patent system, we are creating more incentive for research and development, which will keep America on the cutting edge of new technologies and innovations.\u201d\nRepresentative Lofgren: \u201cWe do have a problem among patent assertion entities, sometimes called patent trolls, and abusive lawsuits.\u00a0 It\u2019s a big issue for start-ups and entrepreneurs, and a study found more than half of these suits were against small businesses.\u00a0 When a meritless lawsuit is threatened, it\u2019s easy to extort a smaller payment to make it go away.\u00a0 That\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to deal with in this genuinely bipartisan bill, with White House support, in order to stop an unnecessary drain on innovation that could better benefit the American economy and job creation.\u201d\nRepresentative Chaffetz: \u201cPatent trolls contribute nothing positive to the economy. Instead, they drain the economy through frivolous lawsuits that siphon off resources from productive American innovators and companies. Small businesses and start-up companies \u2013 who are working to create jobs and grow the economy \u2013 are being suffocated by these egregious lawsuits. The Innovation Act is a commonsense solution that protects the little guy and penalizes those who file groundless claims. I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte\u2019s leadership in tackling this issue with wide-spread, bipartisan support and getting the bill passed.\u201d\nRepresentative Eshoo: \u201cWhen our patent system is not working in a wholesome and robust way, our collective future relative to competition, innovation and consumerism is threatened.\u00a0 In 2011, patent trolls cost companies that actually innovate $29 billion to challenge or settle claims, a 400 percent increase from 2005 and a clear cut-sign that something needs to change. The Innovation Act is the solution to the problem of abusive patent litigation, and I\u2019m proud to have introduced this bipartisan legislation with Chairman Goodlatte and other Members of Congress.\u201d\nBackground on the Innovation Act:\u00a0\n Requires plaintiffs to disclose who the owner of a patent is before litigation, so that it is clear who the real parties behind the litigation are. This will ensure that Patent Trolls cannot hide behind a web of shell companies to avoid accountability for bringing frivolous litigation.\n\tRequires plaintiffs to actually explain why they are suing a company in their court pleadings.\n\tRequires courts to make decisions about whether a patent is valid or invalid early in the litigation process so that Patent Trolls cannot drag patent cases on for years based on invalid claims.\u00a0 This prevents invalid patents from being used to extort money from retailers and end users.\n\tWhen parties bring lawsuits or claims that have no reasonable basis in law and fact, the Innovation Act requires judges to award attorneys\u2019 fees to the victims of the frivolous lawsuit.\u00a0 The bill allows judges to waive the award of attorneys\u2019 fees in special circumstances.\u00a0 This provision applies to both plaintiffs and defendants who file frivolous claims.\n\tRequires the Judicial Conference to make rules to reduce the costs of discovery in patent litigation, so that Patent Trolls cannot use the high costs of discovery to extort money from small businesses and entrepreneurs.\n\tCreates a voluntary process for small businesses to postpone expensive patent lawsuits while their larger sellers complete similar patent lawsuits against the same plaintiffs, to protect customers who simply bought the product off-the-shelf.\n\tRequires PTO to provide educational resources for those facing abusive patent litigation claims.\n The Innovation Act is supported by a wide range of groups that include stakeholders from all areas of our economy representing businesses of all kinds from every corner of our country including independent inventors and innovators.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-appointed-to-the-house-appropriations-committee", "Stewart Appointed to the House Appropriations Committee", "2013-12-04", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov\nWashington, D.C. \u2013 Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) was appointed as a new member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.\n\u201cI\u2019m excited for the chance to serve on the appropriations committee and for the opportunities it offers to better oversee federal spending,\u201d Stewart said. \u201cAs outlined in the Constitution, one of the primary functions of Congress is to manage federal funds. Specifically, the appropriations committee plays a critical and constitutionally mandated role in holding the President and his federal agencies accountable for the people\u2019s money. It has already held more than 150 hearings this year, with a focus on making every aspect of the government justify its existence or else lose its funding. I\u2019m excited to be a part of this effort.\u201d\nJoining Stewart on the committee are Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02) and Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02).\n\u201cI am pleased to welcome Representatives Amodei, Roby, and Stewart to the Committee, and look forward to working side-by-side with them as we tackle our formidable work ahead,\u201d said Rep. Hal Rogers, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. \u201cMembers of the Appropriations Committee have tough jobs to do, and have a great responsibility to properly fund the federal government and support the well-being of the nation. These dedicated public servants have proven their commitment to the responsible shepherding of federal tax dollars, to the regular Appropriations process, and to both the people of their districts and the American people as a whole.\u201d\n\u201cI have been extremely grateful for the opportunity to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment under the House Science, Space and Technology Committee,\u201d Stewart continued. \u201cThese committees are all working on meaningful legislation, which I will continue to support.\u201d\nThe slots on the Appropriations Committee opened following the resignations of Congressmen Rodney Alexander and Jo Bonner, and the death of Defense Subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=010d3292-e0d0-4599-ada1-870ba4f84a2c", "Sen. Lee Hosts Poverty Roundtable", "2013-12-04", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee hosted a roundtable with Utah citizens, experts, government officials, and community activists on the growing crisis of immobility among the poor.\u00a0 The event is a continuation of Sen. Lee\u2019s \u201cLet\u2019s Talk\u201d series he began in August, taking him around the state to hear directly from Utahns about the critical issues facing the state and the country.   \u00a0  Today\u2019s panel, held at the Sutherland Institute, presented an opportunity for those who work in Utah communities to fight poverty to discuss their work with Senator Lee and present ideas for solving the problems they face in promoting upward mobility among the disadvantaged.\u00a0 The roundtable included representatives from Utah Department of Work Force Services, Calvary Baptist Church, Utah Food Bank, 4th Street Clinic, United Way, and Standing Together.  \u00a0  \u201cAmerica's true war on poverty began at the founding of this country,\u201d said Senator Lee after the event. \u201cIt was our dedication to economic freedom and voluntary civil society that liberated millions of American families, opening up opportunities for the pursuit of happiness never known before or since.\u00a0 In that tradition, it should be government\u2019s role today to give struggling Americans greater access to the benefits of free enterprise, the greatest weapon against poverty ever conceived by man.\u201d  \u00a0  With Senator Lee, the group discussed changes in federal and state policy to remove barriers that trap people in poverty and make upward mobility all but impossible.\u00a0 Topics included welfare reform, access to quality affordable health care, removing anti-marriage biases in federal policy, ways to help keep families intact, increasing educational opportunities, and Medicaid reform.  \u00a0  \u201cAs the family goes, so goes society. We need to focus on the role of the father in the family,\u201d said a representative of Standing Together. \u201cIt\u2019s time that someone in Washington speak about moral issues. Poverty is a moral issue.\u201d \u201cHaving federal funds helps, but the regulations that come with those funds do not help the cause. We need flexibility,\u201d added an employee of the Department of Work Services. \u00a0  \u00a0  Senator Lee will continue his \u201cLet\u2019s Talk\u201d series this week with meetings on health care, transportation, education and patent reform.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-sponsored-provo-river-bill-passes-house", "Chaffetz Sponsored Provo River Bill Passes the House", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003817/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363288", "Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force\u2019s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.\u00a0 The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.\u00a0 The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades.\n\u201cToday\u2019s announcement is the final step before the first operation squadron of the U.S. Air Force\u2019s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cThe review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I\u2019ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.\u201d\n\u201cThe Air Force\u2019s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.\u00a0 The F-35 has been referred to as the \u2018backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation\u2019 and today\u2019s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,\u201d said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee.\n\"I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,\u201d said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. \u201cGiven the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.\u00a0 The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004803/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363198", "IN THE NEWS: Park Service director orders fracking comments withdrawn", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis asked that comments the US Department of the Interior agency submitted about the Bureau of Land Management\u2019s proposed hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation regulations on public and Indian lands be withdrawn, Jarvis said in a Nov. 12 letter to US Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Bishop released the letter on Nov. 26.\n\u201cThe inclusion of a quote from an article on the New York Times op-ed page was inappropriate,\u201d Jarvis wrote Bishop in response to a Sept. 6 letter the chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee\u2019s Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee sent him.\nCitations of peer-review scientific studies did not include references to support technical comments that were submitted, Jarvis continued. \u201cIn addition, the comments did not receive appropriate review and were not signed,\u201d he told Bishop. \u201cFor these reasons, I have asked that these comments be withdrawn from the record.\u201d\nAs he released Jarvis\u2019 letter, Bishop said, \u201cIt concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as \u2018science.\u2019 This thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the administration and anti-energy special interest groups.\u201d\nHe said he was pleased the NPS director was having the comments rescinded, and hoped that, moving forward, the agency \u201cwill direct [its] efforts toward promoting the responsible use of our diverse lands and resources and away from misleading the American people.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1e0c4ada-f3b9-43e2-8d50-3c1fbd24652e", "Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force\u2019s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.\u00a0 The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.\u00a0 The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades.\r\n\u201cToday\u2019s announcement is the final step before the first operational squadron of the U.S. Air Force\u2019s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cThe review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I\u2019ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.\u201d\u00a0\r\n\u201cThe Air Force\u2019s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.\u00a0 The F-35 has been referred to as the \u2018backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation\u2019 and today\u2019s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,\u201d said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee.\r\n\"I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,\u201d said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. \u201cGiven the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.\u00a0 The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9c44ba21-8c68-40ce-ba98-cb31e4a1df36", "Hatch On Treasury IG Report On Obamacare Tax Credit Fraud", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement today after the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a report that found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent Affordable Care Act premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people\u2019s personal information would be at risk:\r\n\u201cThe ObamaCare premium subsidies are a fraudsters dream come true.\u00a0\u00a0 As TIGTA found today, the very nature of these credits \u2013 pay first, verify a person\u2019s income later - will lead to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of improper payments and could put millions of American\u2019s personal information at risk.\u00a0 While the IRS needs to do more to ensure more safeguards are put in place, the fact is that the problems with these tax credits are deeply rooted in the law itself. \u00a0I fear the IRS will never be fully capable of ensuring that these refundable tax credits got to those who are truly eligible.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6cbaf8ae-ff6c-465a-881c-1a0dbd908b24", "Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35", "2013-12-03", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force\u2019s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.\u00a0 The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.\u00a0 The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades.\u00a0\u201cToday\u2019s announcement is the final step before the first operation squadron of the U.S. Air Force\u2019s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cThe review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I\u2019ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.\u201d\u00a0\u201cThe Air Force\u2019s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.\u00a0 The F-35 has been referred to as the \u2018backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation\u2019 and today\u2019s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,\u201d said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee.\u00a0\"I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,\u201d said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. \u201cGiven the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.\u00a0 The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003639/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363141", "IN THE NEWS: Park Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing", "2013-12-02", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "In Case You Missed It\u2026\n\u00a0\n\u201cI have requested that the comments be withdrawn from the record,\u201d Mr. Jarvis [NPS Director] said in the letter, dated earlier this month, in which he said nobody \u201cfrom management\u201d at the agency or at the White House Office of Management and Budget ever reviewed the document before it was submitted.\n \nNational Journal:\nPark Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing  \n\u00a0\u00a0\n Park Service pulls objection to fracking; used op-ed instead of scientific evidence \nBy Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times\nNovember 26, 2013 \nThe National Park Service has officially withdrawn a controversial document objecting to fracking, scrubbing the record and acknowledging that it broke its own rules on sticking to strict science in its zeal to pressure a fellow federal agency.\nThe embarrassing admission, which came from Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis in a letter to Rep. Rob Bishop, said the comments never should have been submitted, went out without his review, and shouldn\u2019t have cited a New York Times op-ed as scientific evidence.\n\u201cI have requested that the comments be withdrawn from the record,\u201d Mr. Jarvis said in the letter, dated earlier this month, in which he said nobody \u201cfrom management\u201d at the agency or at the White House Office of Management and Budget ever reviewed the document before it was submitted.\nMr. Jarvis didn\u2019t acknowledge that the science his agency relied upon was bad, but Mr. Bishop said withdrawing the document is a tacit admission that the Park Service was \u201cmisleading\u201d Americans.\n\u201cIt concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as \u2018science,\u2019\u201d the Utah Republican said. \u201cThis thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the administration and anti-energy special interest groups.\u201d \u2026continued here \n\u00a0\n Park Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing\nBy Clare Foran, National Journal\nNovember 27, 2013 \n\u00a0\nThe National Park Service is withdrawing public comments submitted in response to a draft proposal of regulations for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, proposed by the Bureau of Land Management following conservative attacks that the comments, which criticized the drilling technique as a possible health and environmental hazard, were unfounded, according to The Hill. \nWhen NPS formally commented on the BLM's proposed fracking rule in August the agency cited an op-ed written by Cornell University Professor Anthony Ingraffea, which raised the possibility that fracking is a contributor to global warming because it releases methane gas.\nThis sparked pushback from oil and gas industry groups and conservative lawmakers who charged that the op-ed was speculative rather than scientific. In September, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, wrote to Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis calling the comments inconsistent with the agency's scientific-integrity policy and asking the director to defend the response.\nIn mid-November, Jarvis wrote to Bishop with notice that the park service is formally withdrawing its previous comments on the rule.\nJarvis claims, in the letter, that the agency did not intended to submit the comments and that they were not properly vetted internally.\nBishop responded to the news with an attack on the administration\u2026 continued here\n\u00a0\nAdditional stories:\n \n \n \n \nNATIONAL PARK SERVICE CITES ANTI-FOSSIL FUELS NYT OP-ED AS \u2018SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE\u2019 (Daily Caller)", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221014011/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363005", "National Park Service Admits Comments About Hydraulic Fracturing are Wrong", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014 Congressman Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today received a letter from National Park Service (NPS) Director Jon Jarvis admitting that comments recently issued by the NPS to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about hydraulic fracturing are wrong. Director Jarvis conceded that information used to support the National Park Service\u2019s positions on hydraulic fracturing, which they obtained from a New York Times opinion piece, was inappropriate and that the NPS will withdraw its comments.\nIn a letter sent to Director Jarvis on September 06, 2013, Bishop noted that the NPS\u2019s comments to the BLM were inconsistent with the policy on Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities. \u00a0Bishop also raised several other concerns in the letter that were addressed by Director Jarvis in his response letter. \n\u201cIt concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as \u2018science\u2019. This thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the Administration and anti-energy special interest groups.\u00a0 I\u2019m pleased that Director Jarvis will rescind the comments and hope that, moving forward, the NPS will direct their efforts toward promoting the responsible use of our diverse lands and resources and away from misleading the American people,\u201d said Congressman Bishop. \n\u00a0\nSept. 06, 2013 letter from Bishop to Dir. Jarvis\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0November letter from Dir Jarvis to Bishop", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cf3b6392-4fc3-4735-82dc-f496f51d8f0b", "Hatch Statement on Supreme Court Taking up Hobby Lobby Case on Religious Freedom", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),\u00a0current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today applauded the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to hear the Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius case. Hobby Lobby Stores, a Christian-owned chain of retail stores, sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), arguing that the HHS rule mandating that women\u2019s preventative services be covered by all health insurance plans \u2013 as a requirement of the President\u2019s health law \u2013 is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Hatch was an author of RFRA, and in February led a group of Members of Congress in filing an amicus brief in support of Hobby Lobby when the case was before U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (that brief can be found here).\r\n\u201cLast week marked the 20th anniversary of Religious Freedom Restoration Act becoming law, and over the last 20 years the law has stood for the principle that religious freedom is more important that any particular political priority,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cI\u2019ve long argued that Obamacare violated the religious liberty protections Americans hold dear, regardless of political party. The simple fact is that one of our country\u2019s founding principles was religious freedom for all, and I hope the justices on the court understand that this case will determine how important religious freedom is in American today and whether our country still stands for that guiding principle.\u201d\r\nUnder the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, employers who fail to provide this coverage must pay $100 per day per employee, which Hobby Lobby argued would cost the company approximately $1.3 million per day (about $475 million per year). One of the issues the Supreme Court will decide is whether this penalty amounts to a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d under RFRA.\u00a0The 10th Circuit ruled 5-3 in favor of Hobby Lobby that for-profit companies can be \u201cpersons\u201d exercising religion within the meaning of RFRA and that the choice of violating religious belief or paying heavy fines is a substantial burden.\r\nThe case will be decided by the Supreme Court in the current term goes through the end of June 2014.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ec9413b7-efd5-43bc-aaee-b9fd3c57f2b4", "Hatch on Proposed 501(c)(4) Rule Change", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Nov 26 2013\n \n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t Utah Senator Says, \u201cGiven the IRS' recent track record, I pledge to thoroughly oversee this process to ensure politics aren't brought to bear.\u201d \n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\tU.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement today after the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced proposed new rules governing 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations:   \u00a0   \"There is much in these proposed rules to scrutinize. Any change should be carefully considered in a fair, equitable and non-partisan manner. Given the IRS' recent track record, I pledge to thoroughly oversee this process to ensure politics aren't brought to bear. However, I find it unfortunate that the Administration decided to move ahead with these new rules before the Finance Committee could conclude its bipartisan investigation into the targeting of those applying for tax-exempt status.\u00a0 Waiting would have been wiser and would have offered some critical guidance that would have benefited this process. Furthermore, the uptick in applications over recent years was not just isolated to 501(c)(4)s, but to union tax-exempt 501(c)(5) organizations as well. I hope the Administration understands that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and looks at these union groups moving forward.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=9a621835-580e-4749-95ef-1ceee3119c39", "December 2013 - Mobile Office Schedule", "2013-11-26", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Tuesday 3 December 2013 \u2013 Davis County Mobile Office Visit to West Bountiful  When: Tuesday 3 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM \u2013 Noon  Where: West Bountiful @ West Bountiful City Hall, 550 North 800 West, West Bountiful, UT 84087 (Small Conference Room)\r\nMobile Office Visit to Syracuse  When: Tuesday 3 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM \u2013 3:00 PM  Where: Syracuse, Utah @ Syracuse City Hall, 1979 West 1900 South, Syracuse, UT 84075 (TBD Room in City Hall) Wednesday 4 December 2013 \u2013 Davis County Mobile Office Visit to Woods Cross  When: Wednesday 4 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM \u2013 Noon  Where: Woods Cross, Utah @ Woods Cross City Hall, 1555 South 800 West,\u00a0 Woods Cross, UT 84087 (Multi-Purpose Room \u2013 enter through East glass doors) Mobile Office Visit to Clearfield  When: Wednesday 4 December 2013 @ 2:00 PM \u2013 4:00 PM  Where: Clearfield, Utah @ Clearfield Municipal Building, 55 South State Street, Clearfield, UT 84015 (Multi-Purpose Room \u2013 2nd Floor) Friday 6 December 2013 \u2013 Salt Lake County Mobile Office Visit to Cottonwood Heights  When: Friday 6 December 2013 @ 10:30 AM \u2013 Noon  Where: Cottonwood Heights, Utah @ Whitmore Library, 2197 E. Ft Union Blvd,\u00a0 Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121 (Meeting Room) Mobile Office Visit to MIllcreek  When: Friday 6 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM \u2013 3:00 PM  Where: Millcreek, Utah @ Millcreek Community Library, 2250 E. Evergreen Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 (Room C)\r\nMonday 9 December 2013 \u2013 Wasatch County What: Mobile Office Visit to Heber City  When: Monday 9 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM \u2013 3:00 PM  Where: Heber City, Utah @ Heber City Office, 75 N Main, Heber City, UT 84032 (Council Chamber)  Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd  How: POC: Michelle Kellogg, 435-654-0757 (Confirmed) Tuesday 10 December 2013 \u2013 Morgan County What: Mobile Office Visit to Morgan City  When: Tuesday 10 December 2013 @ 11:00 AM \u2013 1:00 PM  Where: Morgan, Utah @ Morgan City Building, 90 West Young Street, Morgan, UT 84050 (Special Collections Room)  Who: Robert Axson  How: POC: Julie Bloxham, 801-829-3461 ext.1 (Confirmed) Tuesday 10 December 2013 \u2013 Tooele County What: Mobile Office Visit to Grantsville  When: Tuesday 10 December 2013 @ 2:00 PM \u2013 4:00 PM  Where: Grantsville, Utah @ Grantsville Public Library, 42 N Bowery Street, Grantsville, UT 84029 (Special Collections Room)  Who: Larry Shepherd  How: POC: Linamarie Johnson, 435-884-1670 (Confirmed) Wednesday 11 December 2013 \u2013 Salt Lake County What: Mobile Office Visit to Murray City  When: Wednesday 11 December 2013 @ 9:30 AM \u2013 11:30 AM  Where: Murray, Utah @ Murray City Heritage Center, 10 East 6150 South, Murray, UT 84107  Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd  How: POC: Suzzane Gregory, 801-264-2635; Rondi Knowlton, 801-264-2602 (Confirmed) What: Mobile Office Visit to Sandy City  When: Wednesday 11 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM \u2013 3:00 PM  Where: Sandy, Utah @ Sandy City Hall, 1000 Centennial Parkway,\u00a0 Sandy, UT 84070 (East Conference Room, 3rd Floor)  Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd  How: POC: Dave Goldhart, 801-568-7249; Sherry McConkey, 801-568-7109 (Confirmed) Thursday 12 December 2013 \u2013 Box Elder County What: Mobile Office Visit to Willard  When: Friday 12 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM \u2013 Noon  Where: Willard, Utah @ City Hall, 80 W 50 S,\u00a0 Willard, UT 84340  Who: Robert Axson  How: POC:Debbie Barker 435-734-9881 (Confirmed)", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-goodlatte-demand-more-information-dhs-libya-policy", "Chaffetz, Goodlatte Demand More Information from DHS on Libya Policy", "2013-11-25", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/PARCAct", "Stewart\u2019s PARC Act Discussed in House Committee Hearing", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov\nWashington, D.C. \u2013 Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing discussing the PARC Act. The Provide Access and Retain Continuity Act, introduced last month by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), would enable states to continue operating National Parks and other federal facilities in the event of a future government shut down, if the states so choose.\n\u201cIt is my hope in proposing this legislation that it will protect the hard working citizens of this nation from the uncertainties of politics,\u201d Stewart said. \u201c To offer Governors and state governments the ability to develop contingency plans with the Department of the Interior before future government shutdowns take place.\u00a0 It is not just good economic policy, it is humane policy.\u201d\nUtah\u2019s Lt. Governor, Spencer Cox, testified before the committee saying that the effects of the national park closures were immediate and dramatic during the shutdown of the federal government. Cox noted that national parks and monuments, which add approximately $100 million per month to Utah\u2019s economy, should continue to operate during any future government shutdowns.\n\u201c[In October], the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior were able to quickly negotiate an agreement in which the state would upfront the money to the National Park Service in order to operate Utah\u2019s national parks and monuments until federal budget crisis was resolved,\u201d Cox said.\nCox believes the PARC Act would help ensure continuity of operations.\nDuring the hearing, the committee also discussed, H.R. 3286, a bill that would reimburse states like Utah for paying to operate National Parks during the October government shutdown.\n\u201cThe important principle is that when states agree to help in a time of need, they should be fully compensated for this assistance\u00a0in a timely fashion,\u201d Cox said.\nRep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, supports the PARC act and said that Congress should reevaluate how we go about managing federal land.\n\u201cStates have proved that they are better equipped with regards to land and resource management,\u201d Bishop said. \u201cThe notion that the federal government is the only entity that can oversee our resources is asinine and is regularly debunked.\u201d\nRead Stewart\u2019s Committee Statement about the PARC Act, below:\n\u201cThank you Chairman Bishop.\u00a0 I am pleased to appear before your sub-committee to introduce H.R. 3311, the \u201cProvide Access and Retain Continuity Act\u201d or the PARC Act.\u00a0 Thank you for considering this legislation here.\u201d\n\u201cWhen the Federal Government shut down in October of this year it seemed as if the Administration used all the lessons from their years spent in Chicagoland politics to do what they could to make the shutdown felt by the nation in the most painful way.\u00a0 In the shutdown of 1995 and \u201896 agreements were eventually worked out between the Interior Department and the State of Arizona that allowed the State to take over funding of some of the operations of the Grand Canyon National Park.\u00a0 Yet in 2013 it took two weeks before any such agreement was reached, despite the Arizona precedent from the \u201895/\u201996 shutdown.\u201d\n\u201cIn my State of Utah it is estimated that Utah tourism suffered $30 million in losses due to the federal shutdown. \u00a0Tourism provides roughly 40 percent of the employment in Southern Utah where businesses and communities were hard hit in the government shutdown.\u00a0 In Utah there are 5 national parks, 7 national monuments, 2 national recreation areas and 6 national forests; 70 percent of the land in my State is owned by the federal government.\u00a0 Across the nation the federal government owns 30 percent of the land.\u00a0 In the West, the State of Nevada is 84 percent owned by the federal government; in Idaho, Alaska and Oregon it owns more than 50 percent; in California, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico over 40 percent.\u00a0 All this to say that if an Administration wants to make a shutdown painfully felt, it is easy for them to do so.\u00a0 In the West, where there is so much federal land, it is detrimental not only to tourism but to other industries such as mining, timber, transportation and cattle production.\u00a0 In the Eastern States there is more private land ownership.\u00a0 In the west it can severally harm or destroy hundreds of small businesses that rely on the public lands.\u00a0 This is not a situation that we in the west welcome, to be completely honest we would like to control our lands the way so many of our Eastern friends are able to but that is not yet the case.\u201d\u00a0\n\u201cBut whether you are from the West, the East, the North or South the recent federal shutdown with its closure of public lands constituted a loss of billions of dollars in business revenue around the nation.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0\n\u201c I have proposed the PARC Act to keep this kind of abuse from taking place, to allow states, territories and the District of Columbia to enter into agreements with the Department of the Interior to keep economically important federal facilities in operation during future government shutdowns.\u00a0 These agreements would be in place and could not be altered as a result of the political vicissitudes at the moment of a future government shutdown.\u00a0 These agreements would allow for the continued operation of the public lands and for an avenue by which, once the government has re-opened, the states can be remunerated for their expenditures on behalf of the federal government.\u201d \u00a0 \u00a0\n\u201cMy intention in proposing this legislation is not partisan.\u00a0 I understand the political knife cuts both ways.\u00a0 My intention is to create a legal mechanism where Americans can be spared the economic trauma as a result of political partisanship.\u00a0 It was not just National Parks in Utah or even the West that were closed and caused economic trauma.\u00a0 There were facilities such as the Great Smokey Mountains National Park in North Carolina, the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Acadia National Park in Maine, the District of Columbia, Liberty Island and Ellis Island in New York, Independence National Historical Park in Pennsylvania, just to name a few.\u00a0 There was not any state in the Nation that was not affected by the federal shutdown.\u201d\u00a0\n\u201cIt is my hope in proposing this legislation that it will protect the hard working citizens of this nation from the uncertainties of politics.\u00a0 To offer Governors and state governments the ability to develop contingency plans with the Department of the Interior before future government shutdowns take place.\u00a0 It is not just good economic policy it is humane policy and I ask for your support and encourage its passage. Thank you.\u201d\n\u00a0\nFor a video of the Rep. Stewart\u2019s opening statement and questioning of the witnesses, click here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003643/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362499", "Bishop Holds Legislative Hearing to Examine State and Federal Management of National Parks and Other Public Lands", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2013 Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today held a legislative hearing to examine bills pertaining to state and federal management of national parks and other public lands. Utah\u2019s Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox was among the guests testifying at the hearing today.\n\u201cThe common thread among the legislation we considered and of the testimony we heard today was that the centralized soviet-style management of our public lands and resources should be abandoned. It\u2019s the \u2018old\u2019 way of doing things and we\u2019re in an era where that simply no longer works. I\u2019m not sure that it ever worked and we need to reevaluate how we go about managing federal land. States have proved that they are better equipped with regards to land and resource management. The notion that the federal government is the only entity that can oversee our resources is asinine and is regularly debunked. I am grateful to those who testified today about these important issues and was especially thankful for the testimony of Utah\u2019s new Lieutenant Governor Cox,\u201d said Congressman Bishop. \nThe following bills were reviewed today by the subcommittee:\nProtecting States, Opening National Parks Act [H.R. 3286] introduced by Congressman Steve Daines (MT-At Large): To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use State funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. \nState-Run Federal Lands Act [H.R. 3294] introduced by Congressman Don Young (AK- At Large): To establish a streamlined process through which a State may claim authority over and responsibility for management of Federal lands located in the State without claiming ownership of the land, and for other purposes. \nProviding Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act [H.R. 3311] introduced by Congressman Chris Stewart (UT-02): To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow continued operation of facilities and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. \nRiver Paddling Protection Act [H.R. 3492] \u200b introduced by Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (WY- At Large): To provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge, and for other purposes.\n[H.R. 915] introduced by Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III (MA-04): To authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=e2614e95-9e81-41d0-a8da-509a533132a2", "Hatch On The Nuclear Option", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for initiating the so-called \u201cnuclear option\u201d to change Senate rules. After Majority Leader Reid moved forward with using the nuclear option \u2013 which would end the right to filibuster by allowing each judicial nomination to only need a simple majority to be confirmed \u2013 Hatch issued the following statement:\n\u201cToday we face a real crisis in the confirmation process, a crisis concocted by the Democrat majority to distract attention from the Obamacare disaster and, in the process, consolidate more power than any majority has had in more than 200 years. This crisis was created by a majority that wants to win at all cost, for whom the political ends justify any means whatsoever.\u201d\r\nNOTE: Hatch has long opposed the filibustering of judges.\u00a0 To read Hatch\u2019s statement entered for the record today, click here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011205/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362423", "House Sends Senate a Bill to Improve Energy Leasing and Permit Process", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2013 The House of Representatives today passed legislation to improve the current leasing and permitting process for resource development on federal land. Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, has been a leading proponent of the - Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act [H.R. 1965] and lauded the House\u2019s support for the measure.\nThe average time for lease holders to obtain a state-issued permit to drill on approved\u00a0 state land is 12-15 days.\u00a0 According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the average time for lease holders to obtain a permit on federal land is 307 days. It currently takes 30% longer to develop resources on federal land than on state land. \n\u201cIt\u2019s time for the Administration to take their stranglehold off of western states.\u00a0 In states like Utah, federal land accounts for nearly 67% of the state. Federal land means no property tax revenue and no tax revenue means no funding for education and other essential community programs.\u00a0 Revenue from recreation and conservation is not enough and I challenge anyone who says that it is. It\u2019s unfair that children whose families cannot afford private school don\u2019t have access to the same educational resources as states like New York and Connecticut. The only way western states can generate funding for education is to utilize the diverse resources found on federal land. There has to be a fair balance between recreation, conservation, and development. I support conservation where it makes sense and it\u2019s time that the Administration support energy development where it also makes sense,\u201d said Congressman Bishop.\u00a0 \nSpecifically, H.R. 1965 \n\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eliminates unnecessary delays regarding the leasing process for oil and natural gas projects on federal lands \n\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Reforms the permitting process so that once a lease is in hand energy companies will be able to more easily complete the requirements necessary to begin development of the resources, \n\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Seeks to set clearer rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=061f4c3f-5cd4-4482-b432-7a21e49089bf", "Hatch Introduces Legislation to Let States Regulate Hydraulic Fracking, Stop Duplicative Federal Regulations", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced common-sense legislation to protect American jobs and domestic energy production from costly and duplicative regulation from Washington. The Protecting States\u2019 Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (S.1743) would ensure that oil and gas producing states are protected from fracking regulations from Washington if states are already regulating the practice. Duplicative regulations over American energy production will lead to higher energy costs and job losses in an already struggling economy. Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives today by a vote of 235 to 187.\r\n\u201cMany states such as Utah are doing the responsible thing and listening to stakeholders and communities around where hydraulic fracturing is taking place and regulating this activity responsibly. The last thing we need is costly and duplicative regulation from Washington on top of what\u2019s already in place in Utah,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cThis bill does nothing to stop the federal government from implement fracking standards in states where none exist \u2013 it simply says that regulations from the federal government cannot trump state action already in place. This bill is an opportunity to stand up for American energy production and protect the jobs that come with it, and I hope the Senate will vote on this bill soon to stand up for American workers and lower energy costs.\u201d\r\nHatch\u2019s bill is cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), and Jim Risch (R-Idaho).", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f1bc08ef-8ae7-4de6-aa04-7d24d474766b", "Hatch, Lee Support Effort To Repay Utah For Reopening National Parks During Government Shutdown", "2013-11-20", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Utah\u2019s U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee are both supporting an effort to fully refund Utah and other states that reopened national parks in their states during the recent government shutdown. Several states entered into individual agreements with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) allowing the state to pay for reopening parks closed during the shutdown, and Hatch and Lee have cosponsored an amendment introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to the National Defense Authorization Act that would fully repay states that came to this agreement with the NPS.\r\n\u201cRefunding states for doing the work of the federal government just makes sense,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cI applauded state leaders last month for taking the strong step to front the operating costs for the national parks while the government was shut down, and the state and Utah taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed.\u201d\r\n\u201cIt is crucial that the National Park Service and the State of Utah continue to be good partners, and refunding the State of Utah for their remarkable efforts certainly is in keeping with that partnership,\u201d Lee stated. \u201cWe will continue to work with the delegations of Arizona and Utah to create a positive resolution to this issue.\"\u00a0\r\nA copy of the Flake Amendment can be viewed here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/november-19-2013-weekly-congressional-update", "November 19, 2013 - Weekly Congressional Update", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the work of the 113th Congress. I trust this finds you and your family well. Today marks the 150th annivesary of the Gettysburg Address, a two\u00a0minute speech that has forever changed our nation. I am grateful for Abraham Lincoln and all he did for our country. Take a moment and read his address\u00a0here.\n\t\tThe Week Ahead:\n\t\tI\u2019m happy to announce that this week, the House Natural Resources Committee will be holding a hearing discussing my\u00a0PARC Act. This bill would ensure that in the event of a future government shut down, an agreement is in place to allow states to quickly continue funding and operating national parks and federal programs that are vital to their economies. There is no reason that hardworking American families and communities should be punished due to circumstances over which they have no control. We are excited to have Utah\u2019s Lt. Governor, Spencer Cox, come to Washington to testify at this hearing on Utah\u2019s behalf.\n\t\tFor a PDF of the full text of the PARC Act,\u00a0click here.\n\t\tVisit the\u00a0House Majority Leader\u2019s website\u00a0for the most up-to-date information on the legislation the House is voting on.\n\t\tLast Week:\n\t\tTo alleviate some of the negative impacts of the botched Obamacare rollout, including increased premiums and cancelled health insurance plans, the House passed the\u00a0Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013. This bill allows health insurances companies to continue offering cancelled health plans through 2014.\n\t\tIf the implementation of Obamacare has impacted you or your family, please share your story with me by filling out\u00a0this survey on my website. It\u2019s important for me to share your stories with my colleagues here in Washington. I remain committed to market healthcare solutions that get the government out of the way, allowing the economy to grow and Americans to make their own choices about their healthcare.\n\t\tI also had the chance to question the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, to advocate for clean air solutions that work for Utah. Watch the clip of me questioning Ms. McCarthy below.\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tStay Connected:\n\t\tFor me to better represent you in Congress, I hope that you will stay connected to my office. Follow me onFacebook, where I regularly post updates and give you a forum to voice your opinion.\u00a0Click here\u00a0to see a full list of the legislation I am sponsoring or co-sponsoring.\u00a0 You can also view many of my House floor speeches and interviews where I discuss the work of Congress on my\u00a0youtube channel.\n\t\tAs always, feel free to\u00a0email me\u00a0if you have any concerns our comments.\n\t\tYour Congressman,\n\t\t\n\t\t\u00a0\n\t\t\u00a0\n\t\tChris Stewart\n\t\tUtah's 2nd Congressional District", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=47507fe5-7faf-499e-9bfe-818b341752d5", "Hatch, Thune, Alexander Introduce Bill To Prevent Special Union Exemption From Obamacare Reinsurance Tax", "2013-11-19", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Following media reports that the Obama administration is once again trying to find a way to exempt unions from ObamaCare\u2019s numerous taxes and mandates, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Thune (R-S.D.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and eight of their Republican colleagues today introduced the Union Tax Fairness Act (S. 1724), a bill to prevent union health care plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans, from being exempted from the ObamaCare reinsurance tax. \u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u201cThe Obama Administration can't just circumvent Congress whenever it wants to curry favor with its political allies,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cSince the overwhelming majority of self-administered health insurance plans are run by unions, let's call this what it is: a political payback by the Administration to its union friends for backing this disastrous law. But the fact is, the White House doesn\u2019t have the authority to change the law on its own and, as this bill makes clear, any attempt at a Big Labor carveout from ObamaCare must be approved by Congress.\u201d\u00a0\r\n\u201cUnions should not be granted a special exemption from ObamaCare\u2019s reinsurance tax just because the president fears further union backlash on his signature law,\u201d said Thune. \u201cThese unions agreed to pay this tax when they endorsed ObamaCare, but now that they are finding out what the law means for them and their plans, they want out. Rather than granting special backroom deals to political allies, the administration should support fairness for all by permanently delaying the law for every American.\u201d\r\nAlexander said, \u201cThe Obama Administration should not reward its labor union friends and allies who helped pass the health care law by giving them a carveout from the law\u2019s worst provisions.\u00a0This hefty reinsurance fee is one of the many job-killing taxes that helped pay for the passage of the law\u2014the administration should be embarrassed that it would consider exempting their union cronies without providing similar relief to our nation\u2019s employers and faith-based and charitable organizations.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThe ObamaCare reinsurance tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and requires all self-insured plans to pay a tax for each person covered under a health plan. The tax was designed to provide funds to health care plans in the ObamaCare exchanges to help absorb the cost of care for people with pre-existing conditions. Thune\u2019s bill would prevent the White House from providing a special fix for unions that would exempt them from the reinsurance tax.\u00a0\r\nIn addition to Hatch, Thune, and Alexander and Hatch, the bill is co-sponsored by Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). \u00a0 \nLast week, Hatch, Thune, and Alexander also led 18 of their Republican Senate colleagues in sending a letter that urged the Obama administration not to move forward with a proposed regulation that would exempt unions from the reinsurance tax.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221014014/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361833", "Bureau of Land Management Cancels Oil and Gas Leases in Utah", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2013 Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) today responded to the Bureau of Land Management\u2019s announcement that it will defer an additional 99,960 acres of land in Southern Utah from its quarterly oil and gas lease sale. This latest deferment brings the total number of acres withdrawn from the lease sale to over 800,000. The BLM\u2019s Price and Vernal Field Offices will instead offer a mere 44,021 acres for oil and gas leases, a mere 5% of what could have been offered.\n\u201cIt\u2019s silly of the BLM to think that it can pass this arbitrary decision off as anything other than what it really is, which is an appeasement of special interest groups that are opposed to all resource development in this area. Their motives are thinly veiled. It is no coincidence that the areas withdrawn from the lease sale are located within the boundaries of a proposal introduced by New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt (NJ-12) that seeks to lock up more than nine million acres as new wilderness.\u00a0 The irony of the situation is that the deferred lease areas are within, or adjacent to, existing federal and state oil and gas leases, which currently coexist in harmony with outdoor recreation.\u00a0 By succumbing to fear mongering from special interest groups, the BLM is further demonstrating the need for locally-driven solutions that support balanced use of the public lands.\u00a0 Revenue from recreation is important to the state of Utah and helps support some communities, but it alone won\u2019t pay the bills. We absolutely must have a balanced land-use portfolio that includes resource development and conservation for recreation.\u00a0 I remain committed to working with all interested parties to build consensus over land-use policies, thereby giving communities and land users the certainty they need and deserve,\u201d said Congressman Bishop. \u00a0\u00a0\n\"Too often, opponents of high-paying energy jobs argue that we can't have both energy development and recreation. This is a false choice. We can have both, and rural Utah desperately needs more high-paying jobs that the energy industry provides. Nearly three times as much land in Emery County is protected from development for every acre that is leased for oil and gas. We need to strike a better balance,\" said Congressman Jason Chaffetz. \nClick here to view map of previous and current lease offerings. Purple areas indicate parcels that the BLM will offer on November 19th. Areas in blue indicate the parcels withdrawn from lease sale.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=305fd9e1-44e1-4985-b424-bcbff52e1776", "Lee, Hatch Respond to Administration's Last-Minute Delay of Nearly 100,000 Acres in Utah For Energy Leasing", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch responded to the announcement by the Bureau of Land Management that it will be deferring nearly 100,000 acres from the proposed oil and gas lease auction on Tuesday, November 19. The BLM announcement that it will reduce the land available at auction by nearly 70% comes just days before sale was scheduled; once again proving the administration's repeated promises of transparency and open communication are empty.\u00a0\r\n\u201cAt a time when the State of Utah, local counties, and Utah's federal delegation are participating in a large scale initiative to resolve many long-standing public land issues, this last-minute bait and switch only reinforces the widespread belief that, under this Administration, BLM is becoming a vehicle for policies created by radical environmentalists,\u201d said Senator Lee.\u00a0 \u201cThis bureaucratic maneuvering does more than hurt the companies that were ready, willing, and able to participate in Tuesday's auction.\u00a0 It discourages companies from participating in future auctions, and perhaps ever investing in states that are dominated by federal land ownership. The cumulative impact of this and other similar actions serves to drive investment away from the families and communities that live near lands managed by the federal government. In order to thrive, these communities need a good faith partner in the BLM.\u201d\r\n\u201cThis misguided announcement by the Bureau of Land Management to defer the leasing of 100,000 acres for energy production because of pressure from environmental elites ironically comes on the heels of news last month that the United States produced more oil than it imported,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cThe fact that our nation is a global leader in energy production seems lost on the President and his Administration who\u2019s doing everything to stop that from happening. This hurts American jobs and American energy independence and must stop.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=831a3eab-3f1b-462f-899f-cd586d67dd16", "Leahy & Lee Introduce Legislation To Protect Innovators Against Patent Lawsuit Abuse", "2013-11-18", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Committee member Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined together Monday to introduce legislation to protect businesses and innovators who are being improperly targeted by patent trolls.\r\n  The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 would increase transparency in patent ownership, protect customers who are sued for patent infringement by allowing the case against them to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates the suit, target the widespread sending of frivolous demand letters, and improve resources for small businesses that are targeted in patent infringement suits, among other provisions.\u00a0 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is an original cosponsor of the bill.  \u00a0  \u201cAmerica\u2019s patent system is the envy of the world, but unfortunately some bad actors are misusing the system to sue unsuspecting consumers or extort monetary settlements by making misleading demands,\u201d Leahy said.\u00a0 \u201cWhen small businesses in Vermont and across the country are threatened with lawsuits for offering wi-fi to their customers or using document scanners in their offices, we can all agree the system is not being used as intended.\u00a0 The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today takes important steps to protect those who are targeted by patent trolls while preserving what has made America\u2019s patent system great.\u201d  \u00a0  Leahy added: \u201cI thank Senator Lee and Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this effort and I applaud Chairman Goodlatte and members from both parties who are working to address this problem. I look forward to working through the Committee process with other Senatorsto develop effective legislation that will help innovators and inventors succeed.\u201d  \u00a0  \u201cCongress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that our system of intellectual property \u2018promote[s] the progress of science and the useful arts.\u2019 Our patent system must protect legitimate property rights and encourage innovation,\u201d Lee said.\u00a0 \u201cRecently, we have seen increased abuse of the patent system in a way that actually discourages innovation and growth of the economy.\u00a0 This legislation, together with other proposals introduced by members of the Judiciary Committee, will restore the proper balance to the patent system.\u201d  \u00a0  Leahy and Lee previously announced their intent to introduce legislation on this issue and their collaboration with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in an op-ed published earlier this year.\u00a0 Leahy has also pressed the Administration to assist in addressing the problem of patent trolls, urging the Federal Trade Commission in June to more aggressively pursue enforcement actions against patent trolls using its consumer protection authority.   \u00a0  An outline of the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 can be found here, and text of thelegislation can be found online.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-cancels-oil-and-gas-leases-utah", "Bureau of Land Management Cancels Oil and Gas Leases in Utah", "2013-11-15", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004958/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361682", "Bishop Supports Bill Allowing Americans to Keep Their Current Healthcare Coverage", "2013-11-15", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2013 Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013 to address the fallacy told by President Barack Obama that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would allow the American people to retain their health insurance plan if they chose to do so.\u00a0 The legislation [H.R. 3350] will allow health insurance issuers to continue offering plans in 2014 that don\u2019t necessarily meet the Obamacare requirements, ensuring that Americans who like their plans can keep their plans as the President promised.\nOn August 15, 2009, President Barack Obama stated:\nI just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening \u2014 if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. (source: whitehouse.gov)\nDespite assurances from President Obama and other Obamacare backers that \u201cyou can keep your health care plan,\u201d more than three and a half million Americans on the \u00a0individual insurance market\u00a0have received notices that their health insurance plans are being cancelled and that they in fact will not be able to retain their current coverage. \n\u201cPresident Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid sold the American people a bill of goods.\u00a0 They lied and now they expect us to trust them to fix it. The roll out of this law has been so fraught with error, it could be fodder for a tragic comedy theater production,\u201d said Congressman Bishop.\nPresident Obama has signed seven bills into law that have repealed portions of Obamacare since it was first passed in 2010.\u00a0 Additionally, the President has unilaterally issued administrative fixes to the law. \n\u201cIt is unlikely that Harry Reid will ever agree to repeal this disastrous law, but a full repeal is the best solution.\u00a0 In the meantime, the House will continue to roll back some of the most egregious components of the bill. Changes to existing law should be the result of an open and legal constitutional process and not the President\u2019s capitulation to current political trends.\u00a0\u00a0 The President\u2019s decision to change laws whenever he wants because of political pressure illustrates his lack of regard for the rights and freedom of the American people,\u201d Bishop added.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221134054/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-johnson-send-letter-dhs-oig-regarding-usss-culture-report", "Chaffetz, Johnson Send Letter To DHS OIG Regarding USSS Culture Report", "2013-11-15", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-3) and Sen. Ron Johnson (WI) released the following statement regarding a letter recently sent to the Department of Homeland Security Deputy Inspector General Edwards:\nEighteen months ago the DHS OIG promised Congress it would conduct an independent review of the culture of the United States Secret Service (USSS). Just this week, we learned that one of the supervisors involved in investigating the sexual misconduct in Cartagena, Colombia last year has himself been disciplined for sexual misconduct.\nThis type of misconduct threatens the security of the president of the United States. Our ongoing investigation has found that the DHS OIG has been inappropriately influenced to soften language in independent reports. We want to know when this report will be released and where it has been for the past year and a half.\nSenator Johnson made the following comments:\n\u201cYesterday we learned that two senior level United States Secret Service (USSS) agents assigned to the president\u2019s detail were recently disciplined for sexual misconduct. According to whistleblowers, one of these men helped lead the USSS internal investigation of the sexual misconduct in Cartagena in April of last year. This is like the fox guarding the hen house.\n\u201cCharles Edwards, DHS Deputy Inspector General, promised an independent review of the USSS culture 18 months ago. Since that time, my subcommittee has received information regarding similar sexual misconduct by USSS personnel in 17 countries. \u00a0This type of behavior jeopardizes the security of the president of the United States and makes U.S. government personnel susceptible to coercion and blackmail. We can\u2019t wait another 18 months for answers.\u201d\nRepresentative Chaffetz commented:\n\u201cReported misconduct of senior-level US Secret Service agents is dangerous, irresponsible, unprofessional, and completely inappropriate. These agents are supposed to be the best of the best. We expect more from them. That those tasked to protect the President would jeopardize his security through such mindless behavior is totally unacceptable. Recent events shine a light on the inappropriate behavior permeating the culture of the USSS that must not be tolerated. A serious and robust investigation must include cooperation from the Administration in order to get to the root of the problem and implement proper reforms.\u201d\nA copy of the letter can be viewed here.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6cac954c-f345-4e1f-b8b9-b0ac71547db1", "Lee, Hatch Respond to Administration\u2019s Last-Minute Delay of Nearly 100,000 Acres in Utah for Energy Leasing", "2013-11-15", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON - Today, Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch responded to the announcement by the Bureau of Land Management that it will be deferring nearly 100,000 acres from the proposed oil and gas lease auction on Tuesday, November 19. The BLM announcement that it will reduce the land available at auction by nearly 70% comes just days before sale was scheduled; once again proving the administration's repeated promises of transparency and open communication are empty. \u201cAt a time when the State of Utah, local counties, and Utah's federal delegation are participating in a large scale initiative to resolve many long-standing public land issues, this last-minute bait and switch only reinforces the widespread belief that, under this Administration, BLM is becoming a vehicle for policies created by radical environmentalists,\u201d said Senator Lee.\u00a0 \u201cThis bureaucratic maneuvering does more than hurt the companies that were ready, willing, and able to participate in Tuesday's auction.\u00a0 It discourages companies from participating in future auctions, and perhaps ever investing in states that are dominated by federal land ownership. The cumulative impact of this and other similar actions serves to drive investment away from the families and communities that live near lands managed by the federal government. In order to thrive, these communities need a good faith partner in the BLM.\u201d \u201cThis misguided announcement by the Bureau of Land Management to defer the leasing of 100,000 acres for energy production because of pressure from environmental elites ironically comes on the heels of news last month that the United States produced more oil than it imported,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cThe fact that our nation is a global leader in energy production seems lost on the President and his Administration who\u2019s doing everything to stop that from happening. This hurts American jobs and American energy independence and must stop.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011208/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361531", "Speaker Boehner Appoints Negotiators to Water Resources Reform Conference Committee", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Speaker Boehner Appoints Negotiators to Water Resources Reform Conference Committee \n   \n    \n      Bishop Named Natural Resources Conferee \n      \n  \n    \n      f \n      t \n      #\n      e\n      \n      \n    \n    \n      \n        Washington,\n        Nov 14, 2013\n      \n       \n    \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n    \n      \n      \n      WASHINGTON, DC \u2013 House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today named the following House Republican negotiators to serve on the House-Senate Conference Committee charged with resolving differences over the Water Resources Reform & Development Act (WRRDA).\n\u201cReforming the way our country develops and maintains vital ports and waterways will strengthen our economy and help create new jobs,\u201d said Speaker Boehner. \u201cThe vote for the House bill was nearly unanimous. It cuts red tape, increases accountability, and protects taxpayers \u2013 all without earmarks.I\u2019m confident our negotiators will come to a quick resolution that includes these reforms \u2013 one that both the House and Senate can pass and the president can sign.\u201d\nNOTE: Here are the House Republicans the Speaker is naming to serve on the House-Senate conference committee:\nTransportation & Infrastructure Committee Conferees:\nNatural Resources Committee Conferees:", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1de2c132-efa8-41fe-b9ae-c973575402ca", "GOP Senators to Administration: No Union Carveouts from Obamacare", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Thune (R-S.D.) and 18 of their Republican colleagues today urged the Obama administration against moving forward with a proposed regulation that would exempt unions from an Obamacare fee that applies equally to employers, charities, and faith-based organizations.\u00a0\r\nThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a regulation on October 30, 2013, stating that the agency intends to propose further rulemaking which would aim to exempt certain Taft-Hartley union health plans from the reinsurance fee mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).\u00a0\r\nIn a letter to Sylvia Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, the senators write: \u201cThe [reinsurance] fee is undeniably expensive for unions, employers, charities and faith-based organizations whose health plans are not available in the new health insurance exchanges and will not see any of those dollars returned to them. For the year 2014, the fee is $63 per covered life\u2014a multi-million dollar levy for larger organizations.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThey continue: \u201cThe regulation makes no justification as to why union members should be exempted from this fee while other similarly situated organizations (and, ultimately, their beneficiaries) must continue to pay it.\u00a0\r\n\u201cIt has been widely reported that labor unions recently sought an exemption from the reinsurance fee through Congress but were rightly rebuffed. To think that the Obama Administration would consider such an action that benefits one group over another can only be characterized as cronyism at its worst.\r\n\u201cSelf-insured health insurance plans\u2014whether or not they also self-administer\u2014are all facing the same dilemma of being forced to subsidize insurance companies participating in the new exchange. The regulatory process is meant to implement the law as written, not as the Administration wishes it were. If the law will unfairly hurt certain groups, it should be repealed or amended through Congress.\r\nClick here to see the letter.\r\nAlexander is the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, Hatch is the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Thune is the senior Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Together, those committees have key oversight roles concerning our nation\u2019s health care system.\r\nThe letter was also signed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.),\u00a0Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=4fb99a25-6482-48dc-ace5-5587228689e9", "Hatch Statement on Judiciary Committee Approval of Judge Carolyn McHugh for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, today applauded the Judiciary Committee\u2019s unanimous approval of Utah Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Judge McHugh\u2019s nomination now must be voted on by the full Senate before she can be sworn in to replace 10th Circuit Judge Michael Murphy, who took senior status on 12/31/12.\r\n\u201cJudge McHugh is an extremely well-respected jurist and I know she will do an outstanding job in this new role,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cHer varied legal experience to date has given her a great foundation for serving on the federal court, and I hope the Senate will act quickly so Judge McHugh can begin her service on the 10th Circuit.\u201d\r\nNOTE: Hatch introduced Judge McHugh at her confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee in September. To read his remarks introducing Judge McHugh then, click here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a3150847-93b7-4cd2-8e12-034161a4aff6", "Hatch, Tester to FCC: Protect Television Reception Across Rural America", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prepares\u00a0for the\u00a0sell-off of television broadcast\u00a0airwaves\u00a0nationwide, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are making sure rural, over-the-air TV signals remain strong.\r\nThe FCC\u2019s upcoming voluntary broadcast \u201cspectrum\u201d auction\u00a0will\u00a0re-package\u00a0the frequencies\u00a0used\u00a0by cell\u00a0phones companies and television broadcasters to expand mobile broadband services and develop better public safety networks.\u00a0\u00a0But\u00a0if the re-packing of\u00a0the nation\u2019s airwaves is\u00a0not done carefully, rural Americans who rely on\u00a0relay stations \u2013 known as\u00a0translators\u00a0\u2013\u00a0and\u00a0low-power stations to\u00a0send\u00a0broadcast signals to their homes could face reception problems.\r\nHatch and Tester,\u00a0both supporters of the auction, want\u00a0FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to ensure that\u00a0the sale of\u00a0television airwaves\u00a0will not worsen broadcast quality for millions of rural viewers who depend upon translators and smaller stations for local news and public safety information.\r\n\u201cAcross our vast prairies and mountain ranges, our constituents rely on over-the-air television to access vital news programming,\u00a0weather updates, emergency announcements and educational and entertainment content,\u201d\u00a0Tester, Hatch and a group of Senators told\u00a0Wheeler in a letter.\u00a0 \u201cWhile we recognize that the repacking process will inevitably lead to changes for translators and low-power television stations, we urge the FCC to ensure that access to quality over-the-air television is preserved.\u201d\r\nTester and Hatch are joined by Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.),\u00a0Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.),\u00a0Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and Mark Udall (D-Colo.).\r\nThe letter Hatch and Tester led to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is available\u00a0HERE.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=b20a664b-fd1c-4d3d-9be4-45af67229600", "Hatch Says President's So-Called Obamacare Plan Will Be Another Broken Promise", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today issued the following statement after the President announced a proposal to grandfather insurance plans:\r\n\u201cThe President can\u2019t fix a broken promise by making more empty promises today that will be broken tomorrow. The difference this time is that he\u2019s hoping to shift the blame to states and insurance companies.\u00a0 That\u2019s not the answer the American people deserve. Doubling-down on the same policy that\u2019s responsible for more than four million Americans losing their health plans is irresponsible and does nothing to solve the problem.\u00a0 Americans should be able to keep the insurance \u2013 and the doctors and hospitals \u2013 of their choosing, as the President promised.\u00a0 Dressing up the same failed policy and pushing it past the 2014 elections is cynical Washington politics at its worst.\u00a0 The President needs to get in the game and work with Congress to replace this law that has become the source of so many problems for too many Americans. The status quo is simply not an option.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c9cbebe4-6217-4d9d-96a3-646bd93b7086", "Hatch Shares Stories From Utahns on Cost & Consequences of Obamacare", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined Senate Republicans on the Senate floor today and shared stories from Utahns on the costs and consequences of the President\u2019s health law.\r\n\r\n\r\n(Click the image above to watch Hatch\u2019s remarks)\r\nHatch delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor: \r\nMr. President, I have received letters from my constituents all over Utah who are scared, angry, and confused about the changes they\u2019re already facing under ObamaCare.\r\nI\u2019ve heard countless stories from Utahns that are losing their coverage and will be forced into more expensive plans thanks to the so-called Affordable Care Act.\r\nOne such story came from Kathy in Salt Lake City.\u00a0 I spoke briefly about Kathy here on the floor a couple weeks ago.\r\nKathy wrote to tell me how she was notified by mail that her existing health care plan was no longer going to be offered.\u00a0 Instead, she was presented with an ObamaCare-compliant policy that will increase her deductible from $3000 to $5000, increase her copays for doctor visits to 30 percent, and increase her copays for prescription drugs to as much as 50 percent.\r\nAs a result of these changes, Kathy\u2019s health care expenses will exceed her income.\r\nTo quote Kathy, \u201cthe claim that only substandard policies were canceled is a lie \u2013 the plan I was on was a good policy.\u201d\r\nShe does not trust the new HealthCare.gov website and feels that there is not adequate security to protect her personal information.\r\nIn her words, \u201cI wouldn\u2019t touch the exchange with a ten-foot pole.\u201d\r\nShe is not alone in feeling this way, which spells trouble for these new health care exchanges and for the President\u2019s health law.\u00a0 I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f8cfc117-f984-4034-b035-8284c7fc9222", "Hatch, Alexander Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Worker Rights", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), current Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, introduced legislation today to significantly reform labor laws for the first time in more than 50 years to improve worker rights. The Employee Rights Act gives workers the freedom to choose to unionize or not and be free from intimidation or retribution for their choice, mandates a secret ballot in elections on whether to form a union, requires unions to be periodically recertified via a secret-ballot vote, prevents \u201cquickie\u201d elections, prevents employees\u2019 dues and fees from being used for political activities without their consent, and takes other important steps to level the playing field for workers against powerful labor unions. The Employee Rights Act is cosponsored by 22 of Hatch and Alexander\u2019s Senate colleagues.\n\u201cThis isn\u2019t a Republican or a Democrat issue \u2013 this is a matter of fairness and basic worker rights,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cEmployees should have the right to join a union or not, and they should be able to decide without being fearful of that decision. They should be able to cast a ballot in secret, just like Americans do at ballot boxes across the country.\u00a0 If there is turnover in the workforce, there should be vote to determine if the union still has the support of current employees.\u00a0 Workers also deserve a say in how their union spends their dues and whether to go on strike. This common-sense bill takes critical steps in giving individual workers the rights they deserve.\u201d\r\n\u201cThe single biggest problem facing the American worker today is a persistently high unemployment rate, and yet union leaders insist on further weakening workers\u2019 opportunities,\u201d said Alexander. \u201cThis bill empowers employees by giving them a say in whether or not they want to join and pay dues to a union, ensuring the privacy of that decision and allowing employees to opt out of having all of their personal contact information and work schedule shared with union organizers.\u201d\r\nIn addition to Hatch and Alexander, the Employee Rights Act is supported by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Tom Coburn (R -Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).\r\nCongressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.\r\nBelow is a summary of provisions in the Employee Rights Act as introduced by Hatch and Alexander:\r\n \r\nSecret Ballot Elections\r\n\r\nGuarantee employees the right to a secret ballot election when deciding whether to join a union.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nUnion Recertification Elections\r\n\r\nRequire that all unionized workplaces with employee turnover exceeding 50 percent to hold secret ballot elections to determine whether a majority of employees still want to be represented by the union.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nPaycheck Protection\r\n\r\nPrevent unions from using employees\u2019 dues and fees for purposes unrelated to their bargaining functions \u2013 including political contributions and expenditures \u2013 without an the employees\u2019 written consent.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nSecret Ballot Strike Votes\r\n\r\nGive employees the right to a secret ballot vote before union leaders can order a strike.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nPrevent \u201cQuickie\u201d or \u201cSnap\u201d Elections\r\n\r\nNegate the recent regulatory effort at the NLRB to unfairly expedite union elections by preventing unions from obtaining employees\u2019 private information and ensuring due process in determining issues such as the appropriate bargaining unit and eligibility of individuals.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nPrevent Union Coercion \r\n\r\nAllow employees to collect lost wages, illegally collected union dues, and/or liquidated damages from a union that interferes with their rights under the NLRA, including the right to petition for decertification of the union.\r\nImpose a procedural penalty on unions that interfere with the filing of a decertification petition.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nCriminalize Union Threats\r\n\r\nStrengthen prohibitions on the use or threat of violence for achieving purposes related to unionization and collective bargaining.\r\nThis would resolve the loopholes created by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Enmons, which effectively exempted unions from federal anti-racketeering statutes.\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\nEliminates Needless Disparities\r\n\r\nConform and make equal the definition of an \u201cunfair labor practice\u201d on the part of a union with that of an employer.\n\r\nAllow every employee in a represented bargaining unit \u2013 regardless of union membership status \u2013 to have the same rights as union members to vote on the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement or to engage in strike or work stoppage.\r\nRequire unions to provide audited financial statements to agency fee payers.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=7fa3e54b-72f7-4348-ad6b-ca6ceeecff23", "The Transportation Empowerment Act", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The Transportation Empowerment Act\r\nThe \u201cTransportation Empowerment Act\u201d opens up America\u2019s transportation system to greater local control, better targeted projects, and a more efficient way to maintain and improve the nation\u2019s infrastructure.\u00a0 The law allows states to respond to the needs of their communities and develop systems that result in less traffic, shorter commutes, more affordable homes, and help families better manage the work-life balance.\r\n\u00a0\r\nHow it Works\r\n \r\nTransfers almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period\r\nLowers the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents from 18.4 cents over the same time period\r\nDuring the five-year phase out, states will receive block grants that come with vastly fewer federal strings attached\r\n \r\nWhat It Does\r\n \r\nImmediately lessens the bureaucratic burden on states to construct critical transportation projects\r\nResults in a faster administrative response to the transportation problems Americans face, such as traffic, commuting, and access\r\nGives states greater flexibility in their tax structure\r\nConnects where people want to work with where they want to live\r\nOpens opportunities to develop new mass-transit solutions, innovate environmental protections, and improve the financing of projects\r\nCreates jobs and grows the economy", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=b7804c0b-f9bd-4106-a061-0360e67852ea", "Lee, Graves, Rubio Introduce Major Highway Funding Reform Bill", "2013-11-14", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-14) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act, a bill to open up America\u2019s transportation system to greater local control, better targeted projects, and a more efficient way to maintain and improve the nation\u2019s infrastructure. The bill allows states to respond to the needs of their communities and develop systems that result in less traffic, shorter commutes, more affordable homes, and help families better manage the work-life balance.\r\n\"Under the Transportation Empowerment Act, Americans would no longer have to send significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached,\u201d said Sen. Lee. \"Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects. Local communities should finally have the flexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want, for less money, without politicians and special interests from other parts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they should build. For the country as a whole, our plan would mean a better infrastructure system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism, and innovative environmental protection. And for working families, it could mean more access to quality, affordable homes, less time on the road \u2013 and making it home in time for dinner with the kids.\u201d\r\n\u201cPeople want to spend less time in traffic and more time enjoying life,\u201d said Rep. Graves, who is introducing the TEA Act in the House for the second time. \u201cOur bill will streamline the highway program, allowing more projects to be completed at a lower cost. This means commuters can move more easily between home and work, freeing up important family time and cutting out hours of frustration behind the wheel.\u201d\r\n\u201cWe must empower states to develop the transportation systems they need and remove roadblocks created by Washington, which is why I have joined Senator Lee in introducing this legislation,\u201d said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). \u201cDonor states like Florida should be getting a better return on our investment, and the Transportation Empowerment Act will do just that.\u201d\r\nThe House version sponsored by Rep. Graves currently has 19 cosponsors.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\r\nLegislation details:\r\nTransportation Empowerment Act\r\nHow it Works\r\n \r\nTransfers almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period.\r\nLowers the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents from 18.4 cents over the same time period.\r\nDuring the five-year phase out, states will receive block grants that come with vastly fewer federal strings attached.\r\n \r\nWhat It Does\r\n \r\nImmediately reduces the bureaucratic burden involved in the construction of critical transportation projects.\r\nResults in a faster administrative response to the transportation problems Americans face, such as traffic, commuting, and access.\r\nGives states greater flexibility in their tax structure.\r\nConnects where people want to work with where they want to live.\r\nOpens opportunities to develop new mass-transit solutions, innovate environmental protections, and improve the financing of projects.\r\nCreates jobs and grows the economy.\r\n \r\nWhy The Current System Hurts The Commute\r\n \r\nWhen the costs of federal red tape and Highway Trust Fund redistribution are taken into account, 37 states, including Georgia and Utah, have a rate of return below 100%.\u00a0 For example, Georgia\u2019s estimated buying power in Fiscal Year 2014 is anticipated to be approximately 84% based on the most recent Highway Trust Fund payment information available, costing Georgia taxpayers $185 million.\r\nFor Fiscal Year 2014, $820 million was authorized nationwide for so-called \u201ctransportation alternatives\u201d described by the Federal Highway Administration as \u201clandscaping and scenic enhancement\u201d and \u201crecreational enhancement,\u201d among others.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20131202211328/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-aims-fix-broken-border-patrol-pay-system", "Chaffetz Aims to Fix Broken Border Patrol Pay System", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz introduced H.R. 3463, The Border Patrol Pay Reform Act of 2013. This bipartisan legislation aims to fix inadequacies in Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) \u2013 the overtime component within the Border Patrol pay system \u2013 by creating a consistent and reliable pay system. These reforms will also enhance border security and save taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years according to initial estimates. \u00a0\n\u201cIn addition to saving $125 million a year, we are looking to bring more consistency to those who risk their lives everyday protecting the border. This new pay scale is a long term solution that will iron out the kinks of the current system through old-fashioned planning and time management. These changes will both reduce opportunities to abuse the system and provide compensation for unanticipated emergencies such as capturing criminals,\u201d said Chaffetz.\u00a0\nThe Border Patrol pay system was established almost 40 years ago and is different from the system covering other federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or Secret Service. A recent report released by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) detailed the misuse of the AUO system by agents in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Situation Room.\nH.R. 3463 would address this problem by replacing AUO with three options: work 100 hours per pay period and receive a 25 percent differential, work 90 hours and receive a 12.5 percent differential, or work no overtime (80 hours per pay period). Additional unscheduled overtime will be treated as compensatory time off. Scheduled overtime will be paid.\nIn total, CBP would save $7,000 per agent per year in lower overtime costs while gaining the ability to legally schedule Agents for shift changes. According to initial estimates, this will save approximately $125 million per year or roughly $1.25 billion over 10 years.\nThe Border Patrol Pay Reform Act is strongly endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and Border Patrol Agents nationwide. Nearly identical legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John McCain (R-AZ).\nAdditional cosponsors in the House include Reps. Candice Miller (R-MI), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Beto O\u2019Rourke (D-TX), Ron Barber (D-AZ), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=382e7f99-1406-4e22-b682-badb90c1eca0", "Hatch, Matheson, Bishop, Chaffetz, Stewart Push For Application Approvals To Export More Natural Gas", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and U.S. Representatives Jim Matheson (UT-4), Rob Bishop (UT-1),\u00a0 Jason Chaffetz (UT-3), and Chris Stewart (UT-2) signed onto a letter sent to Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz urging support for pending applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. Currently, there are only two LNG export terminals proposed for the West Coast, which limits the amount of LNG that can be exported from Utah and other Western states.\u00a0\r\n\u201cRevenues to Rocky Mountain states, such as Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, depend significantly on the production of energy resources within their borders,\u201d the lawmakers wrote. \u201cThe Department\u2019s approvals of LNG exports from east coast and Gulf coast facilities will encourage future natural gas production in eastern and Gulf coast communities. We believe the Department should provide the people of the Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes the same opportunity.\u201d\r\nIn addition to Hatch, Matheson, Bishop,\u00a0Chaffetz and Stewart, the letter was signed by seven other Members of Congress representing Western states.\r\nThe full text of the letter is below:\r\nNovember 12, 2013\r\nThe Honorable Ernest MonizSecretaryU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20585\r\nDear Secretary Moniz:\r\nWe write to express our support for Jordan Cove\u2019s application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries. While we applaud the Department of Energy\u2019s approval of applications to export LNG from facilities located along the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico, it is imperative that the Department quickly review and act on applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries from facilities on the west coast. West coast facilities are essential to ensuring that Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes have greater access to international markets and thus the opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits of LNG exports.\u00a0\r\nRevenues to Rocky Mountain states, such as Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, depend significantly on the production of energy resources within their borders. For example, in 2012, roughly 18 percent of the revenues to the State of Wyoming came from Federal mineral royalties and state severance taxes collected on natural gas production. Likewise, revenues to Indian tribes, such as the Ute Indian Tribe on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah, depend heavily on royalties and tribal severance taxes collected on natural gas production. The nation\u2019s supply of natural gas, however, is projected to soon exceed domestic demand. Consequently, companies have cancelled natural gas projects which has resulted in or is expected to result in less revenue to state and tribal governments and the creation of fewer jobs in our communities.\r\nWest coast LNG export facilities, such as Jordan Cove, would provide Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and Indian tribes, such as the Ute Indian Tribe, direct access to international markets.\u00a0 Specifically, Jordan Cove would allow gas shipped on the Ruby pipeline to be exported to Asian markets. Access to international markets is critical to ensuring that companies have the incentive to produce natural gas in the future. The Department\u2019s approvals of LNG exports from east coast and Gulf coast facilities will encourage future natural gas production in eastern and Gulf coast communities. We believe the Department should provide the people of the Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes the same opportunity. To that end, we ask that the Department expeditiously review and act on Jordan Cove\u2019s application to export LNG to non-FTA countries.\u00a0\r\nThank you for your consideration and we look forward to your prompt response.\r\nSincerely,", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=490afe84-b4a2-4cb8-a432-442a3cac835e", "Hatch Statement on Obamacare Enrollment Numbers", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced only 106,000 individuals have selected a health insurance plan through the ObamaCare exchanges, as of November 2nd:\r\n\u201cA far cry from the hundreds of thousands of Americans the Administration said would sign-up for ObamaCare by the end of the month, these numbers are a lot worse than advertised.\u00a0 The reason is simple: the Administration is over inflating the numbers by including folks shopping for a plan \u2013 not just looking at who\u2019s signed up.\u00a0 At this pace, the Obama Administration will never be able to meet their enrollment goals.\u00a0 In fact, in state after state, the number of people whose health insurance is being dropped because of ObamaCare\u2019s insurance mandates and requirements far exceeds the numbers of those who are signing up.\u00a0 In fact in Utah alone a mere 357 people signed up.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t what the American people were promised.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d78be4d9-04ca-4c80-a26e-360b9401e2a1", "Hatch, 74 Members of Congress Call on Obama Admin to Fully Delist the Gray Wolf", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined with 74 other Members of Congress in sending a\u00a0letter today to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe in support of the June 2013 proposed rule to nationally delist the Gray Wolf as \u201cendangered\u201d or \u201cthreatened\u201d under the Endangered Species Act, and in opposition to a proposal to list the Mexican wolf as a separate, endangered sub-species.\u00a0 This is the second letter that Hatch, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee Doc Hastings (WA-4), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large), and more than five dozen other bipartisan and bicameral Members of Congress and Senators to Director Ashe calling for the delisting of the gray wolf.\u00a0 Despite issuing a proposed rule to delist the wolves five months ago, the Administration has yet to issue a final decision.\r\n\u00a0The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2009 and in the Great Lake States in 2011.\u00a0\u00a0The current situation has created a confusing management and regulatory scheme that has left some states \u2013 including Washington, Oregon and Utah \u2013 in the unsustainable and random situation of having wolves listed on one side of a highway and delisted on the other.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u201cThe statutory purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered \u2018endangered\u2019 or \u2018threatened.\u2019\u00a0 The gray wolf is currently found in 46 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of \u2018least concern\u2019 globally for risk of extinction by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group.\u00a0 This is a clear indication that this species is not endangered or threatened with extinction.\u201d\u00a0wrote the Members in the letter.\r\nIn the letter, Members also express opposition to the proposed provision to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered sub-species:\u00a0 \u201cSince wolves were first provided protections under the ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep and mule deer. This is why we believe it is critical that you reconsider your decision to list the Mexican wolf as a sub-species under ESA, which would have a severe impact on private landowners, including ranchers, in Arizona, New Mexico, and surrounding states. We believe that state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.\u201d\r\n\u00a0Click here to read the full letter.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=7f0bdfce-22c7-4e84-aeef-435dc3368bf9", "Bring Them In", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "It\u2019s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege. \u00a0Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on.\r\nIt is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it\u2019s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us.\r\nAnd yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson\u2019s famous \u201cWar on Poverty\u201d speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line.\r\nToday, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility.\r\nA recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program \u2013 which provides health insurance to the poor \u2013 produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade.\r\nWe know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up.\r\nWe know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods \u2013 compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.\r\nAll of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that \u2013 50 years after Johnson\u2019s speech - America\u2019s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort. \u00a0On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty\u2026 if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it.\r\nFirst, let\u2019s be clear about one thing. \u00a0The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, and the self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\r\nFor more than two hundred years, the United States \u2013 through trial and error, through good times and bad \u2013 has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of the world. The United States has become so wealthy that it is easy to forget that, as Michael Novak once noted, most affluent Americans can actually remember when their own families were poor.\r\nUpward mobility has never been easy. It has always and everywhere required backbreaking work, personal discipline, and at least a little luck. But if upward mobility was not universal in America, it was the norm. From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty \u2013 we were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.\r\nWe usually refer to the free market and civil society as \u201cinstitutions.\u201d But really, they are networks of people and information and opportunity. What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone \u2013 regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on themselves or the government, but on each other. For all America\u2019s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation.\r\nIn a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself is to look out for your neighbors.\u00a0\r\nTogether, these twin networks of service-based success enabled millions of ordinary Americans to make our economy very wealthy and our society truly rich\u2026 long before Lyndon Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government authority. These human \u2013 and humane \u2013 networks empowered Americans, unlike any people on earth or in history, to protect not just themselves but each other from both material want and social isolation.\r\nNow, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other\u2019s lives and meet common challenges. \u00a0As President Obama said in his second inaugural:\r\n\u201cNo single person can train all the math and science teachers we\u2019ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.\u201d\r\nBut by \u201ctogether,\u201d of course, he meant only \u201cgovernment.\u201d\r\nThis discredited mindset \u2013 which insists collective action can only mean state action - is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects social solidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communities for professional community organizers. It distrusts and denies the bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highest expression of our dignity.\r\nLook at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional \u2013 and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form.\r\nFree enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space - between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - where we live, and love, and flourish\u2026 where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life\u2026 where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it\u2026 together.\r\nIn America, government did not invade or replace that space. Government protected and expanded it. That is how we proved to the world that freedom doesn\u2019t mean \u201cyou\u2019re on your own.\u201d Freedom means \u201cwe\u2019re all in this together.\u201d The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It\u2019s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation \u201cof plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.\u201d\r\nOrganic communities formed within the free market and civil society\u2019s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to.\r\nAnd that\u2019s what America was all about. Since the dawn of time, rich and powerful men, and friends of the king, always had access to opportunity. What made America different is that here, everyone did, and government\u2019s job was to make sure of it.\r\nThis is an important point, for progressives to learn and conservatives to remember: the constitutionally limited but indispensable role that government played in America\u2019s original war on poverty. That role was best expressed by a president who understood poverty better than most.\r\nIn 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the \u201cleading object\u201d of American government was:\r\n\u201cto elevate the condition of men - to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.\u201d\r\nIn a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what government ought to do about it. As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity \u2013 a lack of access to those social and economic networks where human opportunities are created. Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor \u2013 they were poor mostly because they were isolated.\r\nAnd so, in America\u2019s original war on poverty, government did not give the poor other people\u2019s money. It gave them access to other people.\r\nIn Lincoln\u2019s era \u2013 even during a cataclysmic war that was itself a struggle for human freedom and opportunity \u2013 that meant dredging rivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods weren\u2019t designed to make poverty more tolerable \u2013 but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at which knowledge could be developed and shared.\r\nPoor farmers and trappers in Lincoln\u2019s Mid-West were no worse at their trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. They just didn\u2019t enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and economic capital.\r\nIn the same way, poor children today do not lack the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in our market economy and civil society. But they absolutely lack the same access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and those skills are acquired.\r\nProperly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It\u2019s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out.\r\nNineteen-sixty-four wasn\u2019t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans\u2019 access to our market economy and civil society and clear them. And if we\u2019re looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, we\u2019ve certainly come to the right place!\r\nToday, many of those obstructions are themselves government policies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged families can take toward social mobility and economic security.\r\nToday\u2019s government-centric system penalizes marriage, which a mountain of evidence now shows is the single most empowering social and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducing benefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of these poverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent.\r\nThus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophies community interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms and dads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old and young, native and immigrant.\r\nMeanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare to health care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosion of fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities.\r\nAnd so conservatives need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not only corrects \u2013 but transcends \u2013 existing policies.\r\nAnyone looking for ideas would do well to visit my home state of Utah, where a combination of smart, efficient government, a growing, prosperous economy, an active and faithful civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world, have made Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in the entire country.\r\nBut first and foremost, we should at least pledge to do no more harm.\r\nThere is no good reason the federal government should maintain 79 separate means-tested programs. There is no good reason why almost none of these programs feature the kind of work-requirements that helped transition millions of Americans into jobs after the 1996 reform. And there is no good reason federal policy should reward states for higher spending rather than improved results. And so one of our first priorities should be to simply get existing federal programs under control. And I am working with the Heritage Foundation and several colleagues on legislation to do just that.\r\nSecond, just as we cannot spend our way out of poverty, we cannot really cut our way out, either. We need to fundamentally fix the system so that every dollar we do spend actually connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market and civil society.\u00a0\r\nOne way to do this would be to block-grant Medicaid funds to the states, eliminating the federal bureaucracy that today stands between underprivileged families and their doctors. \u00a0We could do the same thing with the Head Start program, which spends $8.1 billion every year through a federal bureaucracy without yielding any lasting educational benefits.\r\nThe data doesn\u2019t tell us that pre-K education and health insurance for poor families are bad \u2013 just that the federal government does a lousy job of providing them. So instead, let\u2019s allow states to implement real reforms that give low-income families access to educational and health opportunities somewhere besides the federal bureaucracy.\r\nIn Utah, for instance, our legislature has created a special task force to study the prospects of \u201ccharity care\u201d \u2013 affordable medical services for poor families provided not by government but by individuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities. That model might not work in every state \u2013 but every state should have the freedom to solve problems their own way, according to their own values and priorities.\u00a0\r\nWe need similar reforms to open up our elementary and secondary schools \u2013 giving underprivileged parents and children access to the same opportunities that wealthy Americans take for granted. We need to expand access to higher education, to reform our accreditation system to allow federal aid to follow students to new and diverse options: customized courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus, even professional training and apprenticeships.\r\nAnother area ripe for reform is the federal government\u2019s criminal justice and prison system. The simple fact is that in America today, we put too many people in prison for too long, with too little benefit to our society. If inmates are violent and threats to our communities, then we have a moral responsibility to keep them locked up. If they are not violent and pose no threat, however, if they have reformed and are ready to return to their families and communities, we have just as much moral duty to get them re-integrated into our nation\u2019s networks of social and economic mobility.\r\nI\u2019m working on bipartisan legislation to reform federal sentencing and incarceration policies, following the transformative example of innovative states. If we are serious about access to opportunity for all, then we have to put \u201crehabilitation\u201d back into the vocabulary of the federal prison system.\r\nThere is so much more to do \u2013 on issues ranging from housing to adoption to labor to mental health.\r\nAnd of course, the best thing we can do to help the unemployed find jobs, and low-income workers find higher-income work is to finally get our economy growing again. Reforms to our tax, regulatory, energy, and transportation systems that spur private investment and job creation can do more for upward mobility than anything else in government\u2019s power.\r\nAnd certainly more than any of the divisive, special-interest pandering that the Washington establishments of both parties cynically substitute for serious debate and reform.\r\nThough many Republicans in Congress are building a serious anti-poverty agenda the right way \u2013 you\u2019ll hear from my friends Paul Ryan and Jim Jordan and others today \u2013 others are tempted by what they see as an easier way. Too many in our party today seem to have convinced themselves that electoral success depends on adopting the Left\u2019s strategy of dividing the American people: slice them up into superficial identity groups, and assume that struggling African-Americans, struggling Latinos, struggling Asian-Americans, struggling whites, struggling single parents, struggling unskilled workers, struggling young people, struggling immigrants, and struggling blue collar workers all want different things.\r\nBut don\u2019t they all really want the same thing? To not be struggling?\r\nSpecial-interest policymaking that pits Americans against each other, is the problem, not the solution. The things that truly fight poverty \u2013 economic growth, education, innovation, voluntary exchange \u2013 create opportunities for everyone.\r\nI have no idea if empowering poor families \u2013 regardless of what they look like \u2013 to overcome poverty through the cooperative communities of the market economy and civil society will help the Republican Party. But I do know it will help the American people \u2013 which is what the Republican Party is supposed to be for.\r\nAnd finally, we simply must begin to address what we might call America\u2019s \u201cother marriage debate.\u201d It is uncomfortable to talk about, and almost impossible to legislate. But the fact is, the problem of poverty in America is directly linked to family breakdown and the erosion of marriage among low-income families and communities. Implicit marriage penalties in our tax code and welfare programs surely need legislative remedies. But what we\u2019re really talking about is a question of culture, not policy incentives.\r\nFor years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have employed terms like \u201cfamily values\u201d and \u201cmarriage\u201d primarily as partisan wedges, cudgels to attack ideological opponents. \u00a0This fact did not create America\u2019s marriage crisis \u2013 but it hasn\u2019t helped, either.\r\nAnd now, seemingly every week, scholars are producing more evidence about the social and economic consequences of this essentially moral question. We now have scientific consensus supporting what were once thought to be merely traditions and intuitions. According to one study, the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation are more than $100 billion per year \u2013 a staggering sum that nonetheless pales in comparison to the social and human costs, borne disproportionately by innocent children.\r\nYet, this data has arrived at a moment when the controversies about same-sex marriage tend to overwhelm any political discussion of the institution. It could be said that the political sensitivity of marriage today might be a good reason not to bring it up at all. But I think the data makes this the perfect time to begin this debate precisely because it will require such sensitivity on all sides. In an earlier era, our assumptions and vocabulary might have expressed judgment instead of compassion, and closed doors instead of opening them.\r\nThough the foundational importance of family has not changed \u2013 times and attitudes have. Today, no serious secularist thinks the institution of marriage is intrinsically oppressive. And no serious traditionalist thinks of the children of single mothers as \u201cillegitimate.\u201d\u00a0\r\nEven if we remove morality and religion from the question entirely, a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economic opportunity and multiplier of human and social capital in this world. To say that children tend to do best when raised by their married mom and dad is not a political opinion \u2013 it is a demonstrable fact. \u00a0Saying so does not demean or degrade other family structures. And fear of facts does not make us sensitive \u2013 it leaves us ignorant.\r\nPublic policy need not incentivize people to get married \u2013 for most people, life already does. What public policy \u2013 and even more importantly, the people who make and influence public policy \u2013 must do is to finally accept and embrace and celebrate that fact.\r\nAnd then see what we can do \u2013 together - to help. Sincerely doing so could do more to win the war on poverty than anything else discussed at this conference today.\r\nI want to close with a story from the history of my church and my state.\r\nIn October 1856, two groups of handcart pioneers on their way to Utah were stuck on the plains of Wyoming: short of provisions, with winter coming, the ground so hard they could not dig graves for those who expired in the cold.\r\nIn what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings.\r\nInstead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of the handcart groups. It told of:\r\n\u201cbetween five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling, chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.\u201d\u00a0\r\nBrigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message: \u201cMany of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts \u2026 and they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.\u201d\r\nHe said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those pioneers in the wilderness.\r\n\u201cI will tell you all,\u201d Young said, \u201cthat your faith\u2026 and profession of religion, will never save one soul of you\u2026 unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching....\u00a0 Go and bring in those people now on the plains.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThe rescue party quickly assembled and headed East.\u00a0\r\nDays later, they reached the pioneers \u2013 with food and blankets and hope. The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their rescuers, to Salt Lake \u2013 home at last, where they belonged.\r\nToday, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are not some government\u2019s brothers and sisters \u2013 they are ours.\r\nAnd the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power \u2013 individually, together, and where necessary through government\u2026 to bring them in:\r\n \r\nto bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living,\r\nto bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life,\r\nand to welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind.\r\n \r\nThank you, and God bless.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=181167d7-c23e-4b85-a362-e8bb1b148196", "Lee Outlines Conservative Anti-Poverty Agenda", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee outlined a conservative anti-poverty agenda to address the growing opportunity crisis in America.\u00a0 His speech, at a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, detailed the causes of social immobility among the working and middle class and charted several reforms that clear a path to help individuals and families stuck in poverty.\r\n\u201cNineteen-sixty-four wasn\u2019t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight,\u201d said Sen. Lee. \u201cTo start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans\u2019 access to our market economy and civil society and clear them.\u201d\r\nLee previewed several pieces of legislation, some with bipartisan support, that could be part of a conservative anti-poverty agenda, such as changing the current incentive structure to today\u2019s welfare programs, increasing flexibility for states in Medicaid and Head Start, expanding access to higher education through accreditation reform, as well as improving our criminal justice and prison systems.\u00a0\r\n\u201cWhat makes America exceptional \u2013 and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form\u2026 Organic communities formed within the free market and civil society\u2019s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to,\u201d said Lee.\r\n\u201cProperly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It\u2019s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out.\u201d\r\nRead the full speech (html version) here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/11/bring-them-in\r\nBring Them In: Senator Lee Outlines Conservative Anti-Poverty Agenda", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=2748a4db-f623-47d9-8b5c-83f2d78962e6", "Bring Them In", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "It\u2019s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege. \u00a0Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on.\r\nIt is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it\u2019s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us.\r\nAnd yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson\u2019s famous \u201cWar on Poverty\u201d speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line.\r\nToday, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility.\r\nA recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program \u2013 which provides health insurance to the poor \u2013 produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade.\r\nWe know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up.\r\nWe know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods \u2013 compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.\r\nAll of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that \u2013 50 years after Johnson\u2019s speech - America\u2019s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort. \u00a0On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty\u2026 if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it.\r\nFirst, let\u2019s be clear about one thing. \u00a0The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, and the self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\r\nFor more than two hundred years, the United States \u2013 through trial and error, through good times and bad \u2013 has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of the world. The United States has become so wealthy that it is easy to forget that, as Michael Novak once noted, most affluent Americans can actually remember when their own families were poor.\r\nUpward mobility has never been easy. It has always and everywhere required backbreaking work, personal discipline, and at least a little luck. But if upward mobility was not universal in America, it was the norm. From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty \u2013 we were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.\r\nWe usually refer to the free market and civil society as \u201cinstitutions.\u201d But really, they are networks of people and information and opportunity. What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone \u2013 regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on themselves or the government, but on each other. For all America\u2019s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation.\r\nIn a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself is to look out for your neighbors.\u00a0\r\nTogether, these twin networks of service-based success enabled millions of ordinary Americans to make our economy very wealthy and our society truly rich\u2026 long before Lyndon Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government authority. These human \u2013 and humane \u2013 networks empowered Americans, unlike any people on earth or in history, to protect not just themselves but each other from both material want and social isolation.\r\nNow, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other\u2019s lives and meet common challenges. \u00a0As President Obama said in his second inaugural:\r\n\u201cNo single person can train all the math and science teachers we\u2019ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.\u201d\r\nBut by \u201ctogether,\u201d of course, he meant only \u201cgovernment.\u201d\r\nThis discredited mindset \u2013 which insists collective action can only mean state action - is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects social solidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communities for professional community organizers. It distrusts and denies the bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highest expression of our dignity.\r\nLook at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional \u2013 and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form.\r\nFree enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space - between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - where we live, and love, and flourish\u2026 where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life\u2026 where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it\u2026 together.\r\nIn America, government did not invade or replace that space. Government protected and expanded it. That is how we proved to the world that freedom doesn\u2019t mean \u201cyou\u2019re on your own.\u201d Freedom means \u201cwe\u2019re all in this together.\u201d The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It\u2019s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation \u201cof plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.\u201d\r\nOrganic communities formed within the free market and civil society\u2019s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to.\r\nAnd that\u2019s what America was all about. Since the dawn of time, rich and powerful men, and friends of the king, always had access to opportunity. What made America different is that here, everyone did, and government\u2019s job was to make sure of it.\r\nThis is an important point, for progressives to learn and conservatives to remember: the constitutionally limited but indispensable role that government played in America\u2019s original war on poverty. That role was best expressed by a president who understood poverty better than most.\r\nIn 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the \u201cleading object\u201d of American government was:\r\n\u201cto elevate the condition of men - to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.\u201d\r\nIn a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what government ought to do about it. As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity \u2013 a lack of access to those social and economic networks where human opportunities are created. Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor \u2013 they were poor mostly because they were isolated.\r\nAnd so, in America\u2019s original war on poverty, government did not give the poor other people\u2019s money. It gave them access to other people.\r\nIn Lincoln\u2019s era \u2013 even during a cataclysmic war that was itself a struggle for human freedom and opportunity \u2013 that meant dredging rivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods weren\u2019t designed to make poverty more tolerable \u2013 but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at which knowledge could be developed and shared.\r\nPoor farmers and trappers in Lincoln\u2019s Mid-West were no worse at their trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. They just didn\u2019t enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and economic capital.\r\nIn the same way, poor children today do not lack the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in our market economy and civil society. But they absolutely lack the same access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and those skills are acquired.\r\nProperly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It\u2019s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out.\r\nNineteen-sixty-four wasn\u2019t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans\u2019 access to our market economy and civil society and clear them. And if we\u2019re looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, we\u2019ve certainly come to the right place!\r\nToday, many of those obstructions are themselves government policies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged families can take toward social mobility and economic security.\r\nToday\u2019s government-centric system penalizes marriage, which a mountain of evidence now shows is the single most empowering social and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducing benefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of these poverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent.\r\nThus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophies community interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms and dads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old and young, native and immigrant.\r\nMeanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare to health care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosion of fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities.\r\nAnd so conservatives need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not only corrects \u2013 but transcends \u2013 existing policies.\r\nAnyone looking for ideas would do well to visit my home state of Utah, where a combination of smart, efficient government, a growing, prosperous economy, an active and faithful civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world, have made Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in the entire country.\r\nBut first and foremost, we should at least pledge to do no more harm.\r\nThere is no good reason the federal government should maintain 79 separate means-tested programs. There is no good reason why almost none of these programs feature the kind of work-requirements that helped transition millions of Americans into jobs after the 1996 reform. And there is no good reason federal policy should reward states for higher spending rather than improved results. And so one of our first priorities should be to simply get existing federal programs under control. And I am working with the Heritage Foundation and several colleagues on legislation to do just that.\r\nSecond, just as we cannot spend our way out of poverty, we cannot really cut our way out, either. We need to fundamentally fix the system so that every dollar we do spend actually connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market and civil society.\u00a0\r\nOne way to do this would be to block-grant Medicaid funds to the states, eliminating the federal bureaucracy that today stands between underprivileged families and their doctors. \u00a0We could do the same thing with the Head Start program, which spends $8.1 billion every year through a federal bureaucracy without yielding any lasting educational benefits.\r\nThe data doesn\u2019t tell us that pre-K education and health insurance for poor families are bad \u2013 just that the federal government does a lousy job of providing them. So instead, let\u2019s allow states to implement real reforms that give low-income families access to educational and health opportunities somewhere besides the federal bureaucracy.\r\nIn Utah, for instance, our legislature has created a special task force to study the prospects of \u201ccharity care\u201d \u2013 affordable medical services for poor families provided not by government but by individuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities. That model might not work in every state \u2013 but every state should have the freedom to solve problems their own way, according to their own values and priorities.\u00a0\r\nWe need similar reforms to open up our elementary and secondary schools \u2013 giving underprivileged parents and children access to the same opportunities that wealthy Americans take for granted. We need to expand access to higher education, to reform our accreditation system to allow federal aid to follow students to new and diverse options: customized courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus, even professional training and apprenticeships.\r\nAnother area ripe for reform is the federal government\u2019s criminal justice and prison system. The simple fact is that in America today, we put too many people in prison for too long, with too little benefit to our society. If inmates are violent and threats to our communities, then we have a moral responsibility to keep them locked up. If they are not violent and pose no threat, however, if they have reformed and are ready to return to their families and communities, we have just as much moral duty to get them re-integrated into our nation\u2019s networks of social and economic mobility.\r\nI\u2019m working on bipartisan legislation to reform federal sentencing and incarceration policies, following the transformative example of innovative states. If we are serious about access to opportunity for all, then we have to put \u201crehabilitation\u201d back into the vocabulary of the federal prison system.\r\nThere is so much more to do \u2013 on issues ranging from housing to adoption to labor to mental health.\r\nAnd of course, the best thing we can do to help the unemployed find jobs, and low-income workers find higher-income work is to finally get our economy growing again. Reforms to our tax, regulatory, energy, and transportation systems that spur private investment and job creation can do more for upward mobility than anything else in government\u2019s power.\r\nAnd certainly more than any of the divisive, special-interest pandering that the Washington establishments of both parties cynically substitute for serious debate and reform.\r\nThough many Republicans in Congress are building a serious anti-poverty agenda the right way \u2013 you\u2019ll hear from my friends Paul Ryan and Jim Jordan and others today \u2013 others are tempted by what they see as an easier way. Too many in our party today seem to have convinced themselves that electoral success depends on adopting the Left\u2019s strategy of dividing the American people: slice them up into superficial identity groups, and assume that struggling African-Americans, struggling Latinos, struggling Asian-Americans, struggling whites, struggling single parents, struggling unskilled workers, struggling young people, struggling immigrants, and struggling blue collar workers all want different things.\r\nBut don\u2019t they all really want the same thing? To not be struggling?\r\nSpecial-interest policymaking that pits Americans against each other, is the problem, not the solution. The things that truly fight poverty \u2013 economic growth, education, innovation, voluntary exchange \u2013 create opportunities for everyone.\r\nI have no idea if empowering poor families \u2013 regardless of what they look like \u2013 to overcome poverty through the cooperative communities of the market economy and civil society will help the Republican Party. But I do know it will help the American people \u2013 which is what the Republican Party is supposed to be for.\r\nAnd finally, we simply must begin to address what we might call America\u2019s \u201cother marriage debate.\u201d It is uncomfortable to talk about, and almost impossible to legislate. But the fact is, the problem of poverty in America is directly linked to family breakdown and the erosion of marriage among low-income families and communities. Implicit marriage penalties in our tax code and welfare programs surely need legislative remedies. But what we\u2019re really talking about is a question of culture, not policy incentives.\r\nFor years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have employed terms like \u201cfamily values\u201d and \u201cmarriage\u201d primarily as partisan wedges, cudgels to attack ideological opponents. \u00a0This fact did not create America\u2019s marriage crisis \u2013 but it hasn\u2019t helped, either.\r\nAnd now, seemingly every week, scholars are producing more evidence about the social and economic consequences of this essentially moral question. We now have scientific consensus supporting what were once thought to be merely traditions and intuitions. According to one study, the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation are more than $100 billion per year \u2013 a staggering sum that nonetheless pales in comparison to the social and human costs, borne disproportionately by innocent children.\r\nYet, this data has arrived at a moment when the controversies about same-sex marriage tend to overwhelm any political discussion of the institution. It could be said that the political sensitivity of marriage today might be a good reason not to bring it up at all. But I think the data makes this the perfect time to begin this debate precisely because it will require such sensitivity on all sides. In an earlier era, our assumptions and vocabulary might have expressed judgment instead of compassion, and closed doors instead of opening them.\r\nThough the foundational importance of family has not changed \u2013 times and attitudes have. Today, no serious secularist thinks the institution of marriage is intrinsically oppressive. And no serious traditionalist thinks of the children of single mothers as \u201cillegitimate.\u201d\u00a0\r\nEven if we remove morality and religion from the question entirely, a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economic opportunity and multiplier of human and social capital in this world. To say that children tend to do best when raised by their married mom and dad is not a political opinion \u2013 it is a demonstrable fact. \u00a0Saying so does not demean or degrade other family structures. And fear of facts does not make us sensitive \u2013 it leaves us ignorant.\r\nPublic policy need not incentivize people to get married \u2013 for most people, life already does. What public policy \u2013 and even more importantly, the people who make and influence public policy \u2013 must do is to finally accept and embrace and celebrate that fact.\r\nAnd then see what we can do \u2013 together - to help. Sincerely doing so could do more to win the war on poverty than anything else discussed at this conference today.\r\nI want to close with a story from the history of my church and my state.\r\nIn October 1856, two groups of handcart pioneers on their way to Utah were stuck on the plains of Wyoming: short of provisions, with winter coming, the ground so hard they could not dig graves for those who expired in the cold.\r\nIn what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings.\r\nInstead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of the handcart groups. It told of:\r\n\u201cbetween five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling, chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.\u201d\u00a0\r\nBrigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message: \u201cMany of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts \u2026 and they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.\u201d\r\nHe said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those pioneers in the wilderness.\r\n\u201cI will tell you all,\u201d Young said, \u201cthat your faith\u2026 and profession of religion, will never save one soul of you\u2026 unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching....\u00a0 Go and bring in those people now on the plains.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThe rescue party quickly assembled and headed East.\u00a0\r\nDays later, they reached the pioneers \u2013 with food and blankets and hope. The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their rescuers, to Salt Lake \u2013 home at last, where they belonged.\r\nToday, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are not some government\u2019s brothers and sisters \u2013 they are ours.\r\nAnd the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power \u2013 individually, together, and where necessary through government\u2026 to bring them in:\r\n \r\nto bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living,\r\nto bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life,\r\nand to welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind.\r\n \r\nThank you, and God bless.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=1e39edb2-d423-4dbc-a533-ef0b1323a711", "What's Next for Conservatives", "2013-11-13", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Facebook\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTwitter\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tYouTube\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tInstagram\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPinterest\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tVekeo\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAbout Mike\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUtah First\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMobile Offices\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTown Hall Meetings\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUtah Veterans and MIlitary\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Utah First Blog\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2016 Annual Report\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tServices\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAcademy Nominations\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFlag Requests\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTour Requests\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSenate Internships\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFederal Assistance\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRequest a Meeting\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEagle Scout Recognition\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIssues\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tConservative Reform Agenda\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tProtecting the First Amendment\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tProtecting the Second Amendment\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tProtecting Life\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHonoring Our Veterans\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPublic Lands\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tArticle I Project\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBears Ears National Monument Feedback\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSocial Capital Project\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPress\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPress Releases\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBlog\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tVideos\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOp-Eds\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSpeeches\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAn Agenda for Our Time\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Laudable Pursuit\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLegislation\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSponsored Legislation\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCo-Sponsored Legislation\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tVoting Record\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tContact\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNewsletter Signup\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWashington, D.C. Office\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSalt Lake City Office\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSt. George Office\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJell-O with the Senator\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPrivacy Policy\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tContact Senator Lee\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFederal Regulations Impact\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOgden Office\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAccess Live Events", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=c2ba0fdf-5d65-4196-9057-db94d8ba16af", "What's Next for Conservatives", "2013-11-12", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "In the wake of the effort to defund Obamacare, conservatives around Washington and around the country are wondering, \u201cWhere do we go from here?\u201d In Washington, insiders say we must choose either to become simply an obstructionist, ideological rump, or moderate our views and submit to the establishment\u2019s leadership. These have always been Washington\u2019s acceptable versions of conservatism: marginalized or squishy. The challenge for conservatives today is to reject that false choice, and choose our own way forward: a way that is at once principled, positive, and confident. Anti-establishment conservatives and libertarians don\u2019t have to choose between being revolutionaries or reformers \u2013 history says we ought to be both. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who authored the famous \u201c11th Commandment\u201d (\u201cThou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.\u201d) and also primaried a sitting president of his own party. There is nothing inconsistent between support for competitive Republican primaries, and for a unifying, inclusive, positive, ideas-based politics. There is nothing that prevents us from fighting to the last breath to repeal Obamacare, for example, while simultaneously developing the policies we want to replace it with. Calvin Coolidge was right when he said it was more important to stop bad laws than pass good ones \u2013 but his own place in history was confirmed by what his administration did \u2013 cut taxes, reformed the budget, spurred tremendous economic growth \u2013 not what it didn\u2019t do. Indeed, putting the two together \u2013 having both the courage of our convictions as well as the policies of our convictions \u2013 is what real conservative leadership has always looked like. Reagan refused to accept the media\u2019s narrative about Republicans \u2013 that you have to either be a \u201cthoughtful,\u201d \u201cserious\u201d centrist, or a reckless, ignorant conservative. That\u2019s why he was successful, and the Left hated him for it. But Reagan\u2019s victory was not just about his sunny personality. In the years between Reagan\u2019s 1976 primary defeat and his 1980 victory, he and conservatives around the country went about the hard, heroic work of remaking the Republican Party, preparing it \u2013 politically and substantively \u2013 for new generation of conservative leadership. Grassroots conservatives in that era infused the G.O.P. with new energy that put the liberal Old Guard on notice, and took over state parties from the discredited Nixon/Ford establishment. Meanwhile, conservative and libertarian intellectuals and elected officials \u2013 people like Jack Kemp, James Buckley, Milton Friedman, Antonin Scalia, and Irving Kristol, and most of all, Reagan himself \u2013 developed a whole new reform agenda that modernized and redefined conservatism and the Republican Party. Peace through strength replaced d\u00e9tente. Supply-side economics replaced \u201cgreen eye-shade\u201d budgeting. Originalism replaced the \u201cliving constitution.\u201d Pro-life replaced pro-Roe v. Wade. The establishment of that time was not moderate \u2013 they were outright liberals. And conservatives defeated them, outright, by translating \u201canti-establishment\u201d into \u201cpro-reform.\u201d Today, as in Reagan\u2019s generation, conservatives must reapply our core conservative principles to fit the challenges of our time. We need to be aggressively pro-reform and show Americans we have alternatives \u2013 superior alternatives \u2013 to unaffordable and unfair big government. Specifically, and most especially, this new conservative agenda must speak to the challenges and aspirations of those Americans too often ignored by both parties: the poor and middle class families and communities that big government is leaving behind. As it did in the late 1970s, history is once again inviting conservatives to lead. After Reagan\u2019s loss in 1976, conservatives didn\u2019t simply start a \u201ccivil war\u201d \u2013 they started a civil debate. And once they chose to lead with their ideas, the establishment never had a chance. If conservatives want to build a new, principled Republican Party, we are first going to have to build a new, principled conservative agenda. We know we are going to have to reform the tax code, the budget, the welfare system, eliminate corporate welfare and cronyism, and much else: but how? Consultants and insiders say this isn\u2019t the time \u2013 for now we should just hammer away at the president. But Barack Obama is never going to be on another ballot. To enact the reforms all conservatives know we need, we need to win more than elections \u2013 we need to win a mandate. To gain the political and moral authority to do what we need to do, conservatives have to put our ideas before the people, and ask for their support. And, as constitutionalists, and small-\u201cr\u201d republicans, we shouldn\u2019t want it any other way. If we mean to save the Republican Party and rescue American exceptionalism, conservatives today have to do more than fight the good fight \u2013 we have to win the Great Debate. I can\u2019t speak for all conservatives, but all conservatives should know, that\u2019s where I\u2019m going from here.\r\nOriginally published in RedState: What's Next for Conservatives", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/veterans-day-message", "Veterans Day Message", "2013-11-11", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, we celebrate Veterans Day. It\u2019s a day we set aside to honor our true American heroes who have served in the military to protect our great nation.\n\tI come from a family with deep roots in our Military. I was an Air Force Pilot for 14 years, which I really do feel was the coolest job in the world. My father served as a pilot in World War II and 4 of my 5 brothers also served in the military.\n\tI have always said that the military is the greatest incubator for leadership and I believe some of the best men and women in our country have worn the military uniform.\n\tThis Veterans Day, I am incredibly humbled to pay tribute our nation\u2019s veterans. It\u2019s because of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families, that we are able to enjoy the freedoms of the United States of America.\n\tLast week, I paid tribute to Veterans in a speech on the House Floor. Click on the picture below to watch the video.\n\t\n\n\tStay Connected:\n\tFor me to better represent you in Congress, I hope that you will stay connected to my office. Follow me onFacebook, where I regularly post updates and give you a forum to voice your opinion.\u00a0Click here\u00a0to see a full list of the legislation I am sponsoring or co-sponsoring.\u00a0 You can also view many of my House floor speeches and interviews where I discuss the work of Congress on my\u00a0youtube channel.\n\tAs always, feel free to\u00a0email me\u00a0if you have any concerns our comments.\n\tYour Congressman,\n\t\n\tChris Stewart\n\tUtah's 2nd Congressional District", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6eabdd64-463d-471c-ad89-2dab290534f4", "Hatch to Honor Utah Veteran at Saturday's University of Utah Football Game", "2013-11-10", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "In advance of Veterans Day, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will present 95-year-old retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel H. Grant Keeler Layton, Utah with a Prisoner of War (POW) Medal during the first quarter break at the University of Utah game this Saturday at Rice Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Lt. Colonel Keeler was a prisoner of war for almost six months during World War II after the plane he was piloting was shot down over Germany.\r\n\u201cWorld War II veterans are some of the greatest Americans we\u2019ve ever known, and as we honor our nation\u2019s veterans this weekend, it\u2019s my true privilege to stand with Lt. Colonel Keeler and present him with this great honor,\u201d stated Hatch. \u201cLt. Colonel is a truly courageous and patriotic American. Even after being held in two POW camps, he continued to serve in the United States military for more than 26 years. I am truly humbled by our nation\u2019s veterans, and it is because of Lt. Colonel Keeler and so many others like him that we can continue to enjoy the sacred gift of freedom.\u201d\r\nThe plane Lt. Colonel Keeler was piloting was shot down over Merseburg, Germany on November 2, 1944. Lt. Colonel Keeler and his crew were immediately captured by German troops, and he was first held at the POW Camp Stalag LUFT III, 60 miles southeast of Berlin. Then, because of the advancing Russian Army, Lt. Colonel Keeler was moved to Stalag VII A at Moosburg, Germany, 30 miles northeast of Munich. He was freed on April 29, 1945 by U.S. General George Patton\u2019s 3rd Army Corps. He continued to serve in the United States Air Force, ultimately retiring from active duty as a Lieutenant Colonel at the Da Nang Air Base in South Vietnam in 1971.\r\nThe Prisoner of War Medal was not established until 1985; many years after Lt. Colonel Keeler had been in captivity. Hatch was able to procure this medal after it was brought to his attention that this Utah Veteran had not received all the medals he had earned. Joining Hatch on the field for the presentation will be members of Lt. Colonel Keeler\u2019s family, and officials from the University of Utah.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011228/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361532", "Bishop Welcomes Neil Kornze as BLM Director", "2013-11-08", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON\u2014\u00a0Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today released a statement regarding President Barack Obama\u2019s official nomination of Neil Kornze as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).\u00a0 Kornze has been serving as Interim Director since the departure of Director Mike Pool. \u201cI enjoyed working with Director Pool and found him to be responsive, professional, and knowledgeable. I was disappointed to see him leave the BLM and hope to have a similar working relationship with Mr. Kornze. \u00a0I have heard some very good things about him from people I respect. \u00a0I look forward to working with him on matters concerning Utah and our nation\u2019s public lands and hope he will be open-minded about the importance of multiple use.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d659976d-30f4-4f3f-8ff3-cb07fea7363f", "Grassley, Hatch Release Enrollment Data from Four Health Insurance Companies", "2013-11-08", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah today released enrollment data from the four health insurance companies participating in the Washington, D.C., exchange set up via the President\u2019s health care program.\u00a0 The Obama Administration has refused to provide enrollment numbers to the American people.\r\nCareFirst BlueCross BlueShield: two enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 30, 2013.\r\nKaiser Permanente: three enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 31, 2013.\r\nUnitedHealthcare: no enrollment data from the exchange as of Nov. 4, 2013.\r\nAetna:\u00a0 no enrollment data as of Oct. 24, 2013.\r\n\u201cA lot of Americans are getting cancellation notices from their current health care plan but they haven\u2019t been able to enroll in a new plan,\u201d Grassley said.\u00a0 \u201cThe limbo and uncertainty are stressful for them, as they\u2019ve been describing in emails to my office.\u00a0 The chaos imposed on so many people is reason to at least delay the individual mandate, if not outright repeal it.\u201d\r\n\u201cWith numbers like these, it's no wonder the Obama Administration hasn't wanted to release how many people have signed up for ObamaCare,\u201d said Hatch.\u00a0 \u201cWith data from DC's four participating health plans in, there's been a whopping five people enrolled in the city\u2019s exchange. That\u2019s right five. Whether it's significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed.\u201d\r\nOn Oct. 24, 2013, Grassley and Hatch wrote to the four companies participating in the Washington, D.C., health care exchange.\u00a0 The Washington, D.C., exchange has four major plans and so provides a snapshot of how Americans fare in trying to join the new exchanges.\r\nGrassley and Hatch said news reports show problems with what are called \u201c834 forms\u201d that contain individual information that insurers use to enroll the individual in a health care plan.\u00a0\u00a0 Inaccurate or corrupted data would interfere with successful enrollment.\u00a0 That has implications for when the Administration should enforce the individual mandate requiring enrollment.\u00a0 It would be unfair to penalize people for not having health insurance when technical problems have impeded their enrollment, Grassley and Hatch said.\r\nThe responses the senators received are available here, here, here and here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cdab5e9d-32c2-46bd-ba6c-4dc6c35feeac", "Hatch Joins Effort to Protect Unborn Children", "2013-11-07", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a longtime supporter of protecting the rights of unborn children, is cosponsoring the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, introduced today by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), which would ban most abortions nationwide for children over 20 weeks old. Scientific and medical evidence have indicated that 20 weeks is the point in which unborn children can feel pain. The legislation includes exemptions for cases of rape, incest or when the mother\u2019s life would be in danger.\r\n\u201cSimple human compassion requires that we protect unborn children from the pain of abortion,\u201d Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cEven abortion supporters say that the debate should be based on medical science, and we now know that each of us could feel pain as early as 20 weeks after conception.\u00a0I hope that protecting children from pain can be a basis for common ground and that this bill can become law.\u201d\r\nCompanion legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/sponsored-legislation?ContentRecord_id=e76aab49-e043-4374-9e6f-b4409baadd7f", "Sponsored and Co-Sponsored Legislation", "2013-11-07", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "8402 Federal Building\n125 South State Street   Salt Lake City, UT 84138   Tel: (801) 524-4380\nIf you are seeking help with a problem involving a federal agency, and if it is an emergency,\u00a0(e.g. Visas, passports, disability services and benefits, etc.), please call the Salt Lake City office to ensure prompt assistance.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9c6fe64e-1284-495c-a734-497716ab95e5", "Hatch Statement At Finance Committee Hearing Examining Challenges With Obamacare Exchanges", "2013-11-06", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, delivered the following opening statement at a committee hearing examining the challenges of the health law\u2019s insurance exchanges with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It\u2019s been nearly six months since you last appeared before the committee.\u00a0 Given all that\u2019s gone on in that time \u2013 particularly with the implementation of Obamacare \u2013 I\u2019d say that today\u2019s appearance is long past due.\u00a0 \r\nWhen you were here way back in April, you assured us that that the implementation was on track, that it was all going smoothly, and that the exchanges would be ready to go live on October 1st.\u00a0 \r\nNow, it appears that your statements from the previous hearing were, at best, misinformed.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 From where I sit, things do not seem to be going smoothly at all.\u00a0 In fact, I think we would all agree that thus far, the implementation of the so-called Affordable Care Act has been an absolute debacle.\u00a0 You admitted as much last week when you testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee when you said \"hold me accountable for the debacle, I\u2019m responsible.\u201d \r\nMadame Secretary, while I am glad that you are accepting responsibility for this disastrous rollout, I would have preferred that you and the rest of the administration were honest with us to begin with.\u00a0 \r\nPerhaps in April you really did believe that things were on track.\u00a0 But, you had to have had several indications before October 1st that there were problems with the website and with the exchanges \r\nIt is simply inexcusable that the members of this committee were not told earlier that these problems were occurring.\u00a0 \r\nAnd, it wasn\u2019t for want of asking.\r\nI personally sent you a number of letters asking for details on the implementation of the health care law, many of which were ignored entirely.\u00a0 This cavalier attitude toward a Senate committee with oversight jurisdiction over your agency is, put simply, appalling and needs to be rectified.\u00a0 \r\nIf the past month has been any indication, there are likely to be numerous additional problems ahead.\u00a0 That being the case, I think it is only proper that you provide this committee with more regular updates on the issues you are dealing with.\u00a0 \r\nIn fact, I would ask that you come here once a month for the next six months to provide the committee with status updates on the implementation of Obamacare.\u00a0 I hope you will agree to do so.\u00a0 \r\nLike I said, Madame Secretary, it\u2019s clear that the problems you\u2019ve encountered thus far were not unforeseen.\u00a0\u00a0  \u00a0\r\nTwo separate reports \u2013 one from the Government Accountability Office in June and another from Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in August \u2013 identified significant implementation challenges months ahead of the October 1st deadline.\u00a0 Yet, there is no indication that the warnings from these two independent, non-partisan government watchdogs were heeded by the administration or that any thought was given to delaying the startup date as a result.\r\nWhen you were here in April, I raised concerns about whether adequate testing was occurring to ensure that privacy controls were in place for the exchanges.\u00a0 In fact, I specifically asked you about having an independent entity review the entire system before it went live to ensure that all appropriate privacy and security controls were in place.\u00a0 You assured me that all testing protocols were being followed and that privacy issues were a high priority.\u00a0 \r\nHowever, we now know that no end-to-end testing of the system occurred before the system went live. \r\nNone.\u00a0 \r\nIn fact, key CMS officials knew on September 27th that there was a high security risk to the system if it went up as planned.\u00a0 \r\nMy colleagues and I have sent several letters since the spring asking for more information on what privacy controls were being instituted as part of the exchange infrastructure and asking for details about whether or not testing was being done to address the privacy and security concerns we have raised.\u00a0 \r\nTo date, we have not received any answers to our questions.\r\nSo not only can millions of Americans not login to the website successfully, but those who have actually succeeded could now find themselves at the mercy of identity thieves across the globe.\u00a0 I would call this a less than ideal situation for our constituents. \r\nThat brings us to another set of issues that I hope you\u2019ll be able to shed some light on today.\r\nLet me start with a simple premise \u2013 words matter.\u00a0 \r\nWe have all heard the golden saying \u2013 honesty is the best policy. \r\nUnfortunately this age-old wisdom doesn\u2019t seem to apply to the Obamacare pledges. \r\nMore and more promises made at the time this law was passed are now crumbling under the weight of reality on a daily basis. Let\u2019s start with the famous pledge that health reform would reduce costs by $2500 for an average family. \r\nThe truth is, with all the new mandates going into effect, the cost of health insurance in this country is projected to rise at a remarkable rate.\u00a0 \r\nSome studies \u2013 including one from the Manhattan Institute \u2013 estimate that individual market premiums will increase by as much as 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide.\u00a0 \r\nThen, of course, there was President Obama\u2019s promise when the law was passed that \u201cif you like your healthcare plan you can keep it\u201d and that \u201cif you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.\u201d\u00a0 \r\nThis, to put it bluntly, is simply untrue.\u00a0 \r\nIn fact, the Washington Post, on October 30th, gave it Four Pinocchio\u2019s, which represents the highest level of untruthfulness. \r\nYou really have to try to get Four Pinocchio\u2019s. You don\u2019t simply get it for making a misstatement.\r\nYet, it wasn\u2019t until the last few weeks that people in the administration and at the White House started trying to rewrite what the President said.\u00a0 \r\nAnd let\u2019s be candid - it wasn\u2019t a newfound honest streak that changed the administration\u2019s tone \u2013 it was the fact that Americans started receiving cancellation notices from their insurers.\u00a0 According to the Associated Press, 3.5 million people have received such notices thus far.\u00a0 And, the same fate is certain to befall millions more before all is said and done.\u00a0 \r\nPut simply, there is a long track record of broken promises and untruthful answers to both this committee and the American people with respect to how this law would work and the impact it would have.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I hope that will stop today.\u00a0 \r\nNo more caveats. \r\nNo more excuses.\r\nNo more spin.\u00a0 \r\nJust give us the truth.\u00a0 \r\nAnswers like we don\u2019t know and we were wrong are perfectly acceptable, so long as that is the truth.\u00a0\u00a0 Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.\u00a0 As you can see, we have a lot to discuss.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9619eb69-ecc1-4664-bf63-9fe1d4f69c84", "Hatch, Coburn Warn Of Potential Obamacare Subsidy Fraud; Cite Problems With Earned Income Tax Credits", "2013-11-05", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "On the heels of a new Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report that found the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has failed to reduce improper Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) today pressed the IRS for additional answers on how the agency will manage ObamaCare\u2019s premium subsidies, complex tax credits designed to defray the cost of purchasing health insurance, based on household income.\r\nIn a letter to Principal Deputy Commissioner Daniel Werfel, the Senators questioned whether the IRS was equipped to process the subsidies which are both advanceable and refundable \u2013 meaning pay out first and verify later \u2013 and asked for details on the policies that are in place to curb improper payments to taxpayers.\r\n\u201cThis [TIGTA] audit raises serious concerns about the IRS\u2019s unwillingness or inability to successfully prevent billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted on erroneous tax credit claims.\u00a0 We are particularly worried about these findings, given the IRS\u2019s role generally as the primary agency administering a range of credits and specifically in overseeing and implementing the premium tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),\u201d wrote the Senators. \u00a0\u201cSimilar to the EITC, the Affordable Care Act offers refundable tax credits for certain eligible individuals.\u00a0 However, we believe that a range of provisions in federal law, regulations, and administrative practices actually leave the health care overhaul even more seriously susceptible to fraud or abuse than the EITC program already is.\u201d\r\nThe text of the letter to Principal Deputy Commissioner Werfel is below and a signed copy can be found HERE:\r\nDaniel WerfelPrincipal Deputy CommissionerInternal Revenue Service1111 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20230\r\nDear Principal Deputy Commissioner Werfel:\u00a0\r\nRecently, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has \u201cmade little improvement in reducing the improper payment rate for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) since being required to report estimates of these payments to Congress.\u201d[1] In 2012, the IRS allowed about $13.6 billion in improper EITC payments to tax filers who were ineligible for the credit.\u00a0 Unfortunately, that means that up to 25 percent of EITC last year payments were improper.\r\nBack in 2008, TIGTA recommended that IRS come up with alternative methods for identifying and preventing improper payments. However, TIGTA\u2019s recent audit revealed that IRS has not taken any steps to address this recommendation.[2]\u00a0 In fact, TIGTA found that IRS does not even have a goal for reducing future improper payments, or a plan in place to meet such targets.[3]\u00a0 The IRS\u2019s failure to take recommended steps to increase program integrity means the program continues to be at risk.\u00a0 In 2011, up to $16.7 billion in tax credits were issued improperly, and in 2010, the amount was roughly the same\u2014$18.4 billion.\r\nThis audit raises serious concerns about the IRS\u2019s unwillingness or inability to successfully prevent billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted on erroneous tax credit claims.\u00a0 We are particularly worried about these findings, given the IRS\u2019s role generally as the primary agency administering a range of credits and specifically in overseeing and implementing the premium tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).\r\nSimilar to the EITC, the Affordable Care Act offers refundable tax credits for certain eligible individuals.\u00a0 However, we believe that a range of provisions in federal law, regulations, and administrative practices actually leave the health care overhaul even more seriously susceptible to fraud or abuse than the EITC program already is.\r\nFirst, to try to prevent improper payments for federally-facilitated exchanges, IRS will rely partly on personal attestations of income, and only audit a random sample of applicants who claim that their income decreased more than 10 percent from amounts found in last year\u2019s tax filing starting in 2014.[4] State-based exchanges will not be required to perform this audit until 2015.\r\nSecond, because of a change the Obama administration made this past summer, premium credit applicants in state-based exchanges can simply provide a personal attestation that they do not receive qualifying insurance through their employer to receive their premium credits in 2014. No further documentation is required.[5] \r\nThird, a provision in current law actually limits how much the federal government can recover from sending a greater amount of subsidy to consumers than for which they were eligible.[6] In other words, the law currently prevents the recovery of overpayments paid to individuals who turn out not to be eligible for them. \u00a0 This cap on recovering overpayments will prevent federal officials from pursuing billions of dollars in overpayments. In fact,\u00a0according to CBO, if that cap on recapturing subsidy overpayments were eliminated, taxpayers would save $43 billion over a decade.[7]\r\nFinally, the concerns lie not just with the EITC, but with other tax requirements as well. A more recent TIGTA report found that even some of the standard income and withholding verification processes at the IRS may be failing to prevent fraudulent tax refunds.[8]\u00a0As the IRS watchdog explained, \u201cmost current year third?party information is not available until well after the tax return filing season begins and tax returns are processed,\u201d and, as a result, a 2012 audit shows that nearly 1.5 million tax returns \u201cwere not detected by the IRS as potentially fraudulent despite having the same characteristics as IRS-confirmed identity theft fraudulent tax returns.\u201d\u00a0 \r\nOverall, taken together, these realities paint a worrisome picture of the fraud that may be anticipated under PPACA. The premium tax credits vulnerability to fraud and abuse is significant because the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the credits cost taxpayers $796 billion over the coming decade.[9]\u00a0 If these health coverage premium tax credits experience an improper payment rate similar to that of the EITC, about $200 billion taxpayer dollars could be wasted or lost to fraud. Therefore, to better understand how IRS will manage the potential for significant fraud and abuse in applications for PPACA premium tax credits, we respectfully ask for responses to the following questions.\r\n \r\nWhat is IRS\u2019s plan to avoid improper payments made to applicants for premium tax credits, and how will IRS recover such improper payments? \r\nTo what extent is IRS planning to identify or implement alternative compliance methods to avoid or recoup improper premium tax credits, similar to TIGTA\u2019s 2008 recommendation regarding EITC? \r\nGiven the history of high improper payments for EITC, what assurances can you provide that premium tax credits will not result in the same rate of fraud and abuse? \r\nWhat lessons have you learned from addressing EITC improper payments that could be applied to implementing the ACA? \r\nWhat are IRS\u2019s 2014 targets for premium tax credit improper payments?\r\n \r\nPlease provide your response no later than November 25, 2013.\u00a0 \r\nSincerely,\r\nHATCH COBURN", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=6d0e09c0-dc4a-45c5-9b85-034bd5984c43", "Feedback for the Working Families Flexibility Act", "2013-11-05", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "I have received some great feedback about the Working Families Flexibility Act since I introduced it last week.\u00a0 Since government employees already enjoy the benefits that this law would create, there were those from the public sector who wanted to share their experience with these benefits:\r\nLove, love, love this!! I think one should be able to save more than 160hrs. My brother (state employee) had 3 months of comp/sick time together which saved his family when he got cancer. It took about 3 months to get through treatment. Thank u for doing this!\r\n-Carolyn A., Oregon\r\nI like your working family flexibility legislation. I was lucky enough to work where I could take comp time, and even though they didn't treat it as overtime at 1 1/2 hrs per hours worked, it still made it possible for me to work and raise my family.\r\n-Diann M.\r\nI have never understood in my 35 years of Human Resources and now small business owner, why public employees can utilize comp time off and private cannot. Every department of labor law should apply equally to public and private sector.\r\nSharon O., Utah\r\nAs this is a new proposal, there were those who just had more questions about how it would work.\r\nHi Senator Lee, I am totally for this. Sometimes time is worth more than the pay. I do have one question. Is there any stipulation on how you use that time. For example, can you take a week, two weeks or a month (160 hours) at one time? Can your employer take any action against you i.e. layoff, firing or cutting your hours back if you do? I can see that this also could be on an individual company basis.\r\n-Christina G., Nevada\r\nThat\u2019s a great question.\u00a0 How comp time is handled will be entirely decided by employers and employees. The purpose of the law is to give both companies and workers flexibility in determining the best use of comp time. The law requires employers and employees to establish a written agreement outlining the comp time options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his or her needs.\u00a0 Once we eliminate the restrictions that are preventing this flexibility, employers will be free to develop innovative and competitive plans to attract and retain the best employees for their business.\r\nWhile I think this is a great plan that provides much-needed flexibility to employees, this plan also provides flexibility for employers:\r\nI have a small business with less than 15 employees, this would kill my business. Small businesses must be exempt!\r\nWard W., Arizona\r\nI agree with Ward.\u00a0 If a small business doesn't think offering comp time is a good fit for their business, then they can continue to choose to offer just overtime pay to their employees.\r\nI also received feedback from some who were concerned that this represented a new government intrusion into the opearations of small businesses.\u00a0 It is worth recognizing that for many individuals, especially working parents, time is sometimes more valuable than money. Sadly, under current law, the only option available to private-sector employees who work overtime is to receive monetary compensation at 1 1/2 times their normal pay. In 1978, Congress passed the \u201cFederal Employee Flexible and Compressed Work Schedule Act\u201d providing Federal, State, and local governments the ability to give their employees a choice between overtime pay or paid time off for working overtime hours.\u00a0 This legal disparity unfairly discriminates against private-sector employees and impedes those employers who want to offer their employees this flexibility to balance work and family obligations.\u00a0 So, in effect, this law is an attempt to remove existing restrictions as opposed to adding new restrictions.  \u00a0  I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to leave me their feedback on this proposal.\u00a0 If you would like to leave your feedback, click here:", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=64c5b382-6343-4402-93fa-ff03f77b4f25", "Hatch: Trade Negotiations Taking Place in  Utah a Sign of Beehive State's Impact Around the World", "2013-11-01", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over all international trade matters, today welcomed the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) discussions scheduled to take place in Utah from November 18-23, 2013. The TPP is a proposed regional, Asia-Pacific free trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The Asia-Pacific region represents more than forty percent of the world\u2019s trade, and as a group, TPP countries represent the largest goods and services export market for the United States.The November meetings will be an important part of a series of ongoing negotiations between the participating countries as they work towards concluding an agreement, which would then be subject to Congressional approval. \n\u201cFrom the medical device and dietary supplement industries, to farmers and ranchers, trade has an enormous impact on Utah and our entire country,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cTrade supports more than 350,000 jobs in Utah, so to have the chief negotiators from the 12 participating nations in our state to continue working towards an agreement on this monumental trade initiative is significant. Utah exports billions of dollars in goods and services around the world, and it\u2019s a testament to the great people and businesses leading Utah\u2019s economy. As negotiations on the TPP continue, I will continue to highlight the importance of open markets to Utah\u2019s economy and ensure that Utah\u2019s interests are fully represented.\u201d\nA longtime advocate of breaking down trade barriers, Hatch has championed efforts to enhance America\u2019s global competitiveness and increase access for American farmers, workers and job-creators into international markets. Most recently, Hatch helped to successfully enact job-creating trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. He has long fought to preserve intellectual property (IP) standards within international trade negotiations and has called for the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to help open more markets for U.S. exports and ensure American businesses can successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. \nMore information on the TPP can be found here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=3d46386f-f613-4505-bd8a-7aec2eb0cc0d", "What Others are Saying about Senator Lee's \"What's Next for Conservatives?\" Speech", "2013-11-01", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "A series of welfare, education and criminal justice reform proposals from Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin represent serious, conservative reflection on the task of governing.\r\n\r\nThat doesn\u2019t mean that Lee\u2019s strategy would be the first choice of every conservative. Some conservatives might place less priority on expanding health care coverage through tax credits. Other conservatives might place a higher priority on cutting taxes on high-earners. The problem is that every faction of conservatives, even if united, add up to less than a majority. If limited government politics is to have a reasonable chance to succeed, conservatives will have to work together on a strategy they can all live with and that is designed to appeal to persuadable voters who are either middle-class or struggling to enter the middle-class.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe thread that runs from Lee\u2019s prior remarks at Heritage is worth considering. It seems to me that the Utah Senator is attempting something important and useful \u2013 building a philosophical bridge between the hardcore populists and the more traditional structure of Washington conservatism, attempting to prove that these tribes can coexist and actually work together.\r\n\r\n\r\nThough Lee\u2019s speech is not meant to offer a detailed reform agenda for the right, he does identify a number of policy initiatives that are in tune with his vision of a family-friendly conservatism that speaks to the interrelated problems of entrenched poverty, middle-class squeeze, and pervasive rent-seeking.\r\n\r\n\r\nInviting his fellow Republicans to join in a \u201cGreat Debate\u201d over their platform, Lee proceeded to lay out his own vision for the future of the party, a sort of compassionate conservatism 2.0 aimed at fixing the social problems that preoccupy progressives \u2014 income inequality, access to higher education, deteriorating infrastructure \u2014 with policy initiatives that the tea party can love.\r\n\r\n\r\nBut if you follow Lee closely, then you would know that yesterday's speech was part of a much larger and long-term effort formulate a conservative policy agenda that can unite the party and govern the country in the next century.\r\n\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, the Lee is plowing ahead, setting the stage to define his first term in office on his own terms and taking steps to show that he is more than an obstructionist, but can produce ideas sculpted to consider the needs of middle class families. In the last two days, he has released two pieces of legislation that he argues will support that end.\r\n\r\n\r\nMike Lee, the senator from Utah, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation last week that demands attention. The takeaway: Candidates need policy ideas that address the concerns of ordinary voters\u2014and they have to campaign, and win, on those ideas. Lee noted that conservative scholars have a number of imaginative proposals that try to address the breakdown of the family, the rising cost of health insurance and higher education, the lengthening suburban commute, and out-of-control entitlement spending.\r\n\r\n\r\nThere is no reason to believe Reagan would propose the very same solutions to today's problems that he pitched for those America faced 33 years ago. That doesn't mean he'd be more of a Democrat; it means he'd be a Republican focused on today. That is how today's GOP should emulate his generation.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAs for working-class Republicans, they\u2019re not going to embrace class warfare anytime soon but this poll is a caution (another caution), I think, that party leaders need to follow Mike Lee\u2019s lead and start concentrating more on this segment of their base. \u201cYou didn\u2019t build that\u201d is fine for ideologues like me but it doesn\u2019t do much for that apolitical guy who\u2019s been laid off for six months. In fact, remember this poll from Pew in 2011?\r\n\r\n\u201cLike Mike Lee said, you can do both,\u201d Walker said. \u201cYou don\u2019t have to compromise one for the other, meaning you can stand up for your principles, you can push your core beliefs, and you can still govern effectively.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=06c452f2-9edd-430f-9443-c9af3d679349", "Hatch Praises Treasury Dept. for Changing FSA \"Use-or-Lose\" Rule, Says More Must Be Done", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, said he\u2019s pleased that the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have changed the so called \u201cuse-or-lose\u201d rule for Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs) so that a $500 portion can now be rolled over to the following year. \u00a0Hatch, who has introduced legislation allowing $500 to roll over for FSAs and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) as well, believes FSAs and HSAs should be expanded since they are critical tools to help millions of Americans save and help pay for out-of-pocket health care costs.\u00a0\r\n\u201cThis was a good decision by the Treasury Department.\u00a0 Allowing Americans who have one of these accounts to roll $500 over to the following year just makes sense and will give people more help to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs,\u201d said Hatch.\u00a0 \u201cI\u2019d like to see more done to expand these critical accounts that empower the individual to make informed health care decisions using money they saved.\u201d\r\nUnder the Affordable Care Act, FSA contributions were reduced from $5,000 to $2,500.\u00a0 The law also created new limitations on HSAs and FSAs that prevent consumers from using those savings to purchase over the counter treatments like aspirin and cold medicine without a prescription.\r\nHatch\u2019s legislation, the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act, will streamline and simplify HSAs and FSAs for American families, seniors, and entrepreneurs.\r\nSpecifically, the legislation will:\r\n \r\nallow a husband and wife to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA;\r\nremove the onerous new restrictions on the use of HSA and FSA dollars for the purchase of over-the-counter drugs;\r\nallow individuals to roll-over up to $500 from their FSA accounts;\r\nclarify the use of prescription drugs as preventive care that will not be subject to an HSA-eligible plan deductible;\r\nreauthorize the use of Medicaid health opportunity accounts;\r\npromote wellness by expanding the definition of qualified medical expenses to encourage more exercise and better diet;\r\nallow seniors enrolled in Medicare Part A to continue contributing to their HSAs; and\r\nallow for the purchase of low-premium health insurance and long-term care insurance with HSA dollars.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1de00975-65bf-4f31-a0b3-f4ffbf6757f9", "Hatch: State Water Laws Must Trump Federal Permitting", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today cosponsored the Water Rights Protection Act, legislation introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), that prevents federal agencies from requiring privately held water rights be turned over to the federal government. Over the past few years the U.S. Forest Service has attempted to require multiple use permit holders to turn over their privately owned water rights to the federal government as a condition of their permit renewal, prompting the legislation introduced today to protect state and individual water rights.\r\n\u201cWater is the lifeblood in communities throughout Utah, and this common-sense bill simply ensures our farmers and ranchers are not forced to give up their private property rights without fair compensation,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cRequiring private individuals to turn over their privately owned water rights to the federal government would hurt Utah\u2019s economy and give the Washington more authority over Utahns, and I\u2019m going to work hard to stop it.\u201d\u00a0\r\nThe Water Rights Protection Act specifically prohibits the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from requiring the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government as a condition of a special use permit, lease or other land use arrangement.\r\nIn addition to Hatch and Barrasso, Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) are co-sponsors of the Water Rights Protection Act.\r\nBackground:\r\nIn 2011, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) attempted to implement a water clause for ski area permit holders that required ski areas to turn over privately held water rights without compensation in order to receive a renewed USFS land permit. On December 19, 2012 a federal district court in Colorado struck down the USFS\u2019s water clause.\r\nNow, the USFS is trying once again to implement this controversial policy through a revised water clause. If the USFS is allowed to move forward with this policy, it will open the door for other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to implement a similar policy for grazing permits and other multiple use activity that requires a federal land use permit and involves the use of water.\r\nThe Water Rights Protection Act protects privately held water rights, prohibits federal takings, and upholds state water law by:\r\n \r\nProhibiting agencies from implementing a permit condition that requires the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government in order to receive or renew a permit for the\u00a0use of land;\r\nProhibiting the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from requiring water users to acquire rights for the United States rather than for the water user themselves;\r\nUpholding longstanding federal deference to state water law.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=99d0e7fd-5862-44fc-a6de-36dfda353480", "Senate, House Health Leaders Introduce Bipartisan Medicare SGR Replacement Proposal", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), and House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), released a discussion draft outline to permanently fix the broken Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula.\r\nThe bipartisan, bicameral framework \u2014 released in a discussion draft \u2014corrects a decade-long problem that has created uncertainty for millions of Medicare providers and beneficiaries. The leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have collaborated closely to develop a framework to solicit input to begin the committee process for a full repeal of the flawed formula. The discussion draft is available here.\u00a0 Below is a summary of the SGR discussion draft.\r\n\u201cAfter much input from key stakeholders we have come together to create a permanent fix to the Medicare physician payment formula,\u201d said Chairman Baucus.\u00a0 \u201cFor years, Medicare payments to doctors have been at risk of being slashed, limiting seniors\u2019 access to high quality care.\u00a0 Enough with the quick fixes.\u00a0 Our proposal is for a new physician payment system that rewards value over volume. It will go a long way in improving the efficiency and quality of care for America\u2019s seniors.\u201d\r\n\u201cFor too long the flawed Medicare physician payment formula has jeopardized seniors' access to the high quality health care they deserve,\u201d said Ranking Member Hatch. \u201cWith short-term fixes, Congress for years didn't meet the challenge with a real solution. That changes with this bipartisan framework we are unveiling today. We have put forward a permanent solution that repeals the current broken doctor payment system and replaces it with an innovative, new way that rewards physicians who provide quality health care.\u201d\r\n\u201cProviding a permanent solution to the broken SGR formula is vital to ensuring that seniors continue to have access to high quality care,\u201d said Chairman Camp.\u00a0 \u201cThis discussion draft is an important step in a long-term solution to this failed policy.\u00a0 Creating a policy that rewards providers for delivering high-quality, efficient health care is the ultimate goal, and this draft brings us one step closer to that reality.\u201d\r\n\u201cThis bipartisan framework is a welcome first step both toward fixing a broken formula that creates enormous uncertainty for health care providers and patients and also toward continuing the reform of our health care system,\u201d said Ranking Member Levin. \u201cThe framework builds off the tremendous work of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Rep. Allyson Schwartz, further emphasizing value over volume and innovative delivery systems within Medicare.\u201d\r\nSummary of the SGR Problem:\r\nThe Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula \u2013 the mechanism that ties physician payment updates to the relationship between overall fee schedule spending and growth in gross domestic product (GDP) \u2013 is fundamentally broken.\u00a0 Although originally introduced as a mechanism to contain the growth in spending on physician services, a decade of short-term \u201cpatches\u201d has frustrated providers, threatened access for beneficiaries, and created a budgetary dilemma from which Congress has struggled to emerge.\u00a0 Unless Congress acts by January 1, 2014 physician payments will be cut by approximately 24.4 percent.\u00a0 Over the last decade, Congress has spent nearly $150 billion on short-term SGR overrides to prevent pending cuts.\u00a0\r\nThe 113th Congress has brought renewed commitment to repealing and replacing the flawed SGR update mechanism.\u00a0 This effort has been helped by the significantly reduced Congressional Budget Office score for a freeze of physician payments over the next ten years ($139 billion) and the bipartisan proposal reported out by the House Energy & Commerce Committee in July.\u00a0 Building on that effort, this bipartisan, bicameral discussion draft from the Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committees seeks to move away from the current volume-based payment system to one that rewards quality, efficiency, and innovation.\r\nKey points on the SGR discussion draft. It would: \r\n \r\nRepeal the flawed SGR mechanism, ensures payment stability for physicians, and ensures beneficiaries retain access to their physicians\r\nImprove the physician payment system to reward value over volume, ensuring beneficiaries and taxpayers receive value for the money spent\r\nAdvance delivery system reforms and aligns public-private sector efforts\r\nImprove the accuracy of payments for physician services\u00a0\u00a0\r\nIncorporate physician and stakeholder expertise\u00a0\r\nUtilize physician-developed guidelines to avoid provision of unnecessary services\r\nReduce administrative burden on providers by aligning current physician quality programs\r\nProvide timely feedback data to physicians and makes more Medicare data publicly available \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\r\n \r\nSummary of Discussion Draft:\r\nThe framework would permanently repeal the SGR update mechanism, reform the fee-for-service (FFS) payment system through greater focus on value over volume, and encourage participation in alternative payment models (APM), such as accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes.\u00a0 The revised FFS system would freeze current payment levels through the ten-year budget window, while allowing individual physicians and other health care professionals (subsequently referred to collectively as \u201cprofessionals\u201d) to earn performance-based incentive payments through a compulsory budget-neutral program.\u00a0 By combining the current quality incentive programs into one comprehensive program, this framework would further value-based purchasing within the overall Medicare program while maintaining and improving the efficiency of the underlying structure with which professionals are already familiar.\u00a0 Professionals who receive a significant portion of their revenue from an APM(s) that involves two-sided financial risk and a quality measurement component (referred to as an \u201cadvanced APM\u201d) would be exempted from the performance-based incentive program, and would instead receive a bonus payment starting in 2016.\u00a0 By providing funding for measure development priorities for professionals, the framework would address the current gaps in quality measurement programs and ensure meaningful measures on which to assess professionals.\r\nThe framework would encourage care management services for individuals with complex chronic care needs through the development of new payment codes for such services, as well as leverage physician-developed standard of care guidelines to avoid the unnecessary provision of services.\u00a0 It would also improve the accuracy of the physician fee schedule by setting a target for correcting misvalued services and allow for the collection of information on resources used in furnishing services.\u00a0\r\nRecognizing the role of quality and resource use data in helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions and helping professionals improve their performance, the framework would expand the data available to qualified entities (QEs) for quality improvement activities as well as the information available on the Physician Compare website.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=38b18368-a3a3-4c21-bbdc-978396f7338d", "Working Families Flexibility Act", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The \u201cWorking Families Flexibility Act\u201d helps workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by allowing private-sector employers to offer all individuals who work overtime to choose between monetary compensation or comp-time.\u00a0 Particularly for families, the law would help alleviate the difficulties of juggling work, home, kids, and community.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\nHow It Works\r\n \r\nGives employers the ability to offer their employees the option of comp time or overtime pay, both accrued at 1\u00bd times the overtime hours worked.\r\nRequires employers who decide to offer this option to their employees to establish a written agreement with the employee outlining the options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his needs.\r\nRequires that comp time agreements be included in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer for any employee represented by a union.\r\nAllows employees who choose to accrue comp time to accrue up to 160 hours each year.\r\nAllows employees to \u201ccash out\u201d their accrued comp time at the traditional overtime pay rate at any time throughout the year.\r\nMaintains all existing employee protections, including the current 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual, and provides additional safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time is voluntary.\r\nRequires employers to pay employees at the traditional overtime rate for any unused comp time at the end of each calendar year.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\nWhat It Does\r\n \r\nEnds the unfair discrimination against private-sector employees\r\nEnables parents to better balance work and family obligations\r\nFrees all workers to choose which commodity \u2013 time or money \u2013 is the more important resource at a given time\r\nLessens the burden of unnecessary federal regulation", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=88afe9d6-83ad-4d78-a3dd-192e04d59779", "Utah Honor Flight Veterans Visit DC", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "I was privileged to welcome several dozen veterans from Utah and their family members to DC, who were participating in an Honor Flight visit to our national memorials.\u00a0 I am deeply grateful for their service to our country and for the sacrifices they made to protect our freedom and way of life.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=70da23d4-5beb-40da-a53a-88d8a6665ece", "Lee Introduces Comp-Time Bill to Help Working Families", "2013-10-31", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a bill to help workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by allowing all individuals who work overtime to choose between monetary compensation or comp-time. The \u201cWorking Family Flexibility Act\u201d would free workers to choose the best way to alleviate the difficulties of juggling work, home, kids, and community.\u00a0 Sen. Lee\u2019s bill is a companion to legislation first introduced by Rep. Martha Roby (AL) in the House.\u201cFor many families, especially with young children, their most precious commodity is time,\u201d said Sen. Lee. \u201cBut today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. For decades, Congress has given a special exemption from these laws to government employees. This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available to government employees should be available to private-sector workers, as well.\u201d \u201cI am excited about the Working Families Flexibility Act gaining traction in the Senate, and I appreciate Sen. Mike Lee stepping forward to introduce a companion bill,\u201d said Rep. Roby. \u201cTalk to any working mom and dad and they\u2019ll tell you they need more time \u2013 just one more hour in the day to make life work.\u00a0 We can\u2019t legislate another hour in the day, but we can help working people better balance the demands of family and work by removing an unnecessary federal restriction on utilizing comp time in the private sector.\u201d Rep. Roby\u2019s \u201cWorking Families Flexibility Act\u201d, H.R. 1406, passed the House of Representatives in May. Sen. Lee\u2019s bill is cosponsored by Sens. Coburn, Cruz, Hatch, Johnson, Paul, Risch, Roberts, and Rubio. More Information: How It Works\r\n \r\nGives employers the ability to offer their employees the option of comp time or overtime pay, both accrued at 1\u00bd times the overtime hours worked.\r\nRequires employers who decide to offer this option to their employees to establish a written agreement with the employee outlining the options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his needs.\r\nRequires that comp time agreements be included in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer for any employee represented by a union.\r\nAllows employees who choose to accrue comp time to accrue up to 160 hours each year.\r\nAllows employees to \u201ccash out\u201d their accrued comp time at the traditional overtime pay rate at any time throughout the year.\r\nMaintains all existing employee protections, including the current 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual, and provides additional safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time is voluntary.\r\nRequires employers to pay employees at the traditional overtime rate for any unused comp time at the end of each calendar year.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\r\nWhat It Does\r\n \r\nEnds the unfair discrimination against private-sector employees\r\nEnables parents to better balance work and family obligations\r\nFrees all workers to choose which commodity \u2013 time or money \u2013 is the more important resource at a given time\r\nLessens the burden of unnecessary federal regulation\r\n \r\nYou can learn more about the Working Family Flexibility Act and add your voice to the discussion of this proposal here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/working-family-flexibility", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-and-staff-enter-obamacare-exchanges", "Chaffetz and Staff to Enter Obamacare Exchanges", "2013-10-30", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Jason Chaffetz", "C001076", "chaffetz.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The press release you requested is no longer available.  Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details.\r\n              \r\n            \r\n                    \r\n             115th Congress, 1st Session \r\n                \r\n            \r\n                \r\n                    State, District\r\n                    Reason for Vacancy, Successor\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Pennsylvania, 18th\r\n                            The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on October 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Utah, 3rd\r\n                            The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable John R. Curtis was elected\r\nNovember 7, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nNovember 13, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Kansas, 4th\r\n                            The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on January 23, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ron Estes was elected\r\nApril 11, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nApril 25, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Montana, At Large\r\n                            The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected\r\nMay 25, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 21, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            South Carolina, 5th\r\n                            The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Ralph Norman was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            Georgia, 6th\r\n                            The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the\r\n115th Congress on February 10, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected\r\nJune 20, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on\r\nJune 26, 2017.\r\n                        \r\n                        \r\n                    \r\n                    \r\n                        \r\n                            California, 34th\r\n                            The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017.\r\nThe Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected\r\nJune 6, 2017, in special election.\r\nRepresentative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on \r\nJuly 11, 2017.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6f22f0c5-aa23-47ce-9f30-7d0bfb15491a", "Hatch Introduces Legislation to Combat Patent Trolls", "2013-10-30", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today introduced legislation to address the growing threat of so-called \u201cpatent trolls.\u201d Patent trolls purchase existing broad patents and then threaten businesses of infringing on those patents, in search of a financial settlement or litigation. Hatch\u2019s legislation, the Patent Litigation Integrity Act (S. 1612), gives judges more opportunity to shift the costs and expenses of litigation, and gives defendants the opportunity to request a bond up front to prove the party seeking a claim on the patent has the adequate resources to turn over to the prevailing party if that party is successful in defending its claim.\r\n\u201cPatent trolls are a drain on the innovation in our country and their practices need to end,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cMany small businesses in Utah and throughout the country simply don\u2019t have the resources to fight back against the predators in our patent system, and my bill gives them adequate resources to fight back. Fee shifting without the option to seek a bond is like writing a check on an empty account, and that\u2019s why it\u2019s important to include both in any legislation dealing with patent trolls. It\u2019s my hope the Senate will act soon to put a stop to the patent trolls draining the innovation in our country and weakening our economy.\u201d\r\nA one-page summary of S.1612 can be found HERE.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=2f4f7c4d-dc0e-4740-afe3-d368831e94ab", "Lee Introduces Family Fairness Tax Reform Plan", "2013-10-30", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today Senator Mike Lee introduced a tax reform plan that would replace much of today\u2019s complex tax system with a new, simple structure that provides solutions for America\u2019s ongoing opportunity crisis and ends the discrimination of parents in the tax code.\u00a0 The Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act is a pro-family, pro-growth plan that incentivizes social mobility, promotes middle-class economic security, and improves opportunity for all Americans.\r\n\u201cIf there is any single group of people in the entire country whose equal opportunity to pursue happiness we should make sure to protect, it is our ultimate entrepreneurial and investor class: America\u2019s moms and dads,\u201d said Sen. Lee. \u201cThe family has emerged as perhaps the most important institution in our economy.\u00a0 It is an incubator of economic opportunity, an indicator of economic success, and grows more economically important every day.\u201d\r\n\u201cThe current tax code singles out parents of young children for unfair and extremely expensive discrimination. It is what I call the \u2018parent tax penalty,\u2019 a glitch in the federal tax code that forces parents to contribute to senior entitlement programs not once, but twice. \u00a0My plan levels the playing field to treat all taxpayers more equally. For a middle-class family, this is an immediate, potentially life-changing reform.\u201d\r\nUnder this plan, a married couple with two children making the median national income of $51,000 would see a tax cut of approximately $5,000 per year.\r\n\u201cIn short, the Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act would restore opportunities to working parents and their children to pursue happiness that right now federal policy unfairly denies them,\u201d Lee added.\r\n\u00a0\r\nPraise for Senator Lee\u2019s Tax Reform Proposal\r\nFormer Florida Governor Jeb Bush:\u201cSenator Mike Lee and others here are proposing incredibly sound policies to provide incentives for child rearing families to give them the kind of support that they need through our tax code.\u201d\r\nNational Review Editorial Board: \u201cSenator Mike Lee, the Utah conservative, announced an ambitious plan to reform taxes \u2014 much the most attractive one we have heard from any Republican for a long time.\u201d\r\nReihan Salam: \u201c[The Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act] represents genuinely new thinking about how Republicans ought to approach domestic policy\u2026 [I]t will represent a substantial tax cut for middle-income families with children\u201d.\r\nJosh Barro: \u201cLee is out with a new tax plan that's much better and actually addresses the needs of the middle class.\u201d\r\nRamesh Ponnuru: \u201cRepublican economic rhetoric has tended to overemphasize commercial individualism\u2026That critique has some force. But it has less force now that Lee, who is clearly a conservative, is shifting his party's priorities on taxes toward the middle class.\u201d\r\n \r\nEncouraged by @SenMikeLee's policy entrepreneurship to promote upward mobility and economic security: http://t.co/qjnbeYiwlE\r\n\u2014 Paul Ryan (@PRyan) October 29, 2013 \r\n\r\nMore Information:\r\nHow it Works\r\n \r\nEstablishes two individual income tax rates: 15% on all income up to $87,850 \u2013 and twice that amount for married couples - and 35% on all income above that;\r\nOffsets the parent tax penalty by providing an additional $2,500-per child tax credit, available to\u00a0all parents of dependent children and applicable to payroll taxes as well as income taxes;\r\nA $2,000 personal credit to offset the removal of the 10% bracket and the personal exemption;\r\nA new charitable deduction that would be available to all taxpayers, not just current itemizers;\r\nA new mortgage interest deduction, also available to all home-owners, but capped at $300,000 worth of principal;\r\nEliminates special interest loopholes\r\nRepeals Obamacare taxes and the AMT\r\nEliminates the state and local deduction\r\nRevenue expected to be 16-20% of GDP\r\n\u00a0\r\n \r\nWhat it Does\r\n \r\nSimplifies the tax code and lowers the top marginal rate\r\nEliminates an unfair and dysfunctional double standard\r\nVastly improves the economic security of middle-class Americans\r\nEqualizes a system that is rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected\r\nProvides substantial tax relief for most Americans\r\nCreates pro-growth incentives to encourage new jobs and investment\r\nFocuses deductions on the families and communities who need it most\r\nResponds to the inequality crisis facing the country today\r\nConsistent with conservative reform principles", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=adcf6bcc-67ce-4c47-9cfc-179d9ac99770", "Hatch Joins Efforts To Delay Obamacare Until Health Law's Websites Are Functional", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, has cosponsored legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) today that will delay the individual mandate under ObamaCare until six months after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that the exchange website is fully functional. \n\u201cThe rollout of the Obamacare exchanges has been nothing short of a disaster,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cRepublicans have warned that the Obamacare exchanges weren\u2019t ready for prime time, and this legislation is a common-sense step forward while the mess with the exchanges is straightened out. The Administration is now saying the law\u2019s websites won\u2019t be ready until Thanksgiving, which means that Utah families and Americans everywhere will have only a few weeks to make an extremely complicate decision of picking the best health care plan that matches their needs. Delaying the mandate just makes sense, and if Democrats are truly interested in working to address the American people's concerns they\u2019ll support this bill.\u201d\r\nThe \u201cDelay Until Fully Functional Act\u201d would delay the ObamaCare individual mandate and require that GAO study and report to Congress on the websites within 30 days. If the GAO study says the American Health Benefit Exchange is not fully functional and operating in a manner consistent with the role envisioned for exchanges under this act, GAO will do subsequent studies and reports every 60 days until the Comptroller General determines that the exchanges are fully functional. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) inspector general would then issue a certification based on the results of the GAO report. The individual mandate would be reinstated 6 months after the HHS inspector general certification.\r\nThe full text of the bill is available here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ec4613a6-d76d-4a81-87e0-d23ee6e0de64", "Hatch on Debt Limit Resolution of Disapproval", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "In a speech on the Senate floor today, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) reiterated the need for concrete, structural reforms to the nation\u2019s entitlement programs a means of reducing the debt and urged his colleagues to join him in supporting S. J. Res. 26, a resolution to disapprove of the President\u2019s exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit. The Senate is slated to vote on the measure later today.\r\n\u201cThe debt limit debate provides us with an opportunity to reexamine our nation\u2019s fiscal course and take steps to correct it,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cSadly, we have a President who appears unwilling to have that conversation.\u00a0 Instead, he apparently wants to press forward full steam ahead on our already unsustainable course, saddling future generations with unheard of debts and broken entitlement promises in the process.\u201d\r\nHatch continued, \u201cQuite simply, it would be folly to approve of yet another debt limit increase without also working to address these programs, which are the main drivers of our debts and deficits.\u00a0 Therefore, I disapprove of the President\u2019s exercise of an authority to suspend the debt limit, and I urge all of my colleagues to similarly disapprove.\u201d\r\nEarlier this year, Hatch introduced five bipartisan reform ideas that he has presented to President Obama, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.\u00a0\r\nBelow is the text of Hatch\u2019s full speech delivered on the Senate floor today:\r\nMr. President, during debate over a debt limit increase in 2006, then-Senator Obama stated that: \u201cThe fact that we are here today to debate raising America\u2019s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.\u201d\r\nLeadership, he said: \u201cmeans the buck stops here.\u00a0 Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.\u00a0 America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.\u00a0 Americans deserve better.\u201d\r\nMr. President, at that time, our gross debt was $8.3 trillion.\u00a0 It is now well above twice that, currently standing at $17.1 trillion, which is over 100 percent of the size of our economy.\r\nDuring that same 2006 debt limit debate, then-Senator Biden said: \u201cMy vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more.\u00a0 It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.\u201d\r\nMr. President, things have certainly changed since 2006.\u00a0 \r\nNow President Obama and Vice President Biden preside over an administration that tells us that raising the debt limit is merely a matter of paying our bills and is a reflection of decisions made in Congress.\r\n\u00a0\r\nYet, while it is ostensibly true that Congress has the power to raise the debt limit, it is not true that Congress makes spending decisions unilaterally, with no role being played by the Executive Branch.\u00a0 \r\nNo amount of spending can be enacted without the President signing it into law.\r\nIn addition, the President submits a budget every year.\u00a0 The White House also issues policy statements and veto threats on spending bills on a more or less frequent basis.\u00a0 \r\nAnd, of course, every administration works with Congress to enact its domestic agenda, which inherently includes setting priorities in federal spending.\u00a0 \r\nSo, in short, the commonly repeated notion that questions surrounding spending and the debt limit are Congress\u2019s and Congress\u2019s alone to answer is simply an attempt by this administration to avoid accountability on these issues.\u00a0 \r\nUltimately, regardless of what President Obama and those in his administration are saying now, both Congress and Executive Branch are to blame for our current predicament.  \u00a0\r\nLet\u2019s take a look at that predicament for a moment, Mr. President.\u00a0 \r\nThe President has exercised his authority to suspend the debt limit under the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014, which he signed into law on October 17.\r\nOn October 16, public debt subject to the limit was around $16.7 trillion.\r\nOn October 17, the very next day, public debt subject to the limit was over $17 trillion.\r\nIn one day, Treasury increased the debt subject to the limit by over $328 billion.\r\nMr. President, let me repeat that: the debt increased by over $328 billion in a single day.\r\nThat brings the increase in total public debt under this administration to more than $6.4 trillion, an amount that is, by all accounts, unprecedented.\r\nEchoing earlier sentiments of the then-Senator Biden, I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.\r\nThe debt limit debate provides us with an opportunity to reexamine our nation\u2019s fiscal course and take steps to correct it.\u00a0 Sadly, we have a President who appears unwilling to have that conversation.\u00a0 Instead, he apparently wants to press forward full steam ahead on our already unsustainable course, saddling future generations with unheard of debts and broken entitlement promises in the process.\r\n\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Unfortunately, as the Congressional Budget Office has made clear, over the course of President Obama\u2019s administration, the federal government has recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing our debt to soar.\u00a0 Federal debt as a percent of the economy\u2019s annual output is higher than at any point in U.S. history except for a brief period around World War II.\r\nCBO makes three other things equally clear: 1) our debt path is unsustainable, threating our economy and putting us at risk of a fiscal crisis; 2) the root of our fiscal problem is federal spending, not a lack of revenue; and 3) the main source of our spending problem is our unsustainable entitlement programs.\r\nThat being the case, Mr. President, any serious talk about raising the debt limit must include a real, concrete discussion about entitlement reform.\u00a0 \r\nAs every credible analyst will tell you, we need to face the fiscal facts and enact serious, structural reforms to our entitlement programs.\u00a0 \r\nSo far, President Obama has been unwilling to even engage in this discussion.\u00a0 \r\nThese days, every fiscal discussion with the White House begins and ends with demands for additional tax hikes to fuel even more spending.\u00a0 \r\nOf course, the President will occasionally resurrect offers he\u2019s made in past failed fiscal negotiations to entertain small entitlement changes, including, for example, movement to a different price index for certain cost-of-living adjustments.\r\nBut, at the same time, the President and his administration have made clear that even those small entitlement changes will only be on the table if tax hikes are delivered first.\r\nThat is the President\u2019s precondition for even entertaining tax reform or entitlement reform, even on the heels of a more than $630 billion tax hike at the beginning this year and another $1 trillion in revenue delivered courtesy of Obamacare.\r\nMr. President, entitlement reform is not an option, it is a necessity.\u00a0 \r\nStructural reforms to our health care entitlements should not hinge on another tax-and-spend operation.\r\nAnd, structural reforms to Social Security should not be held hostage to another tax hike.\r\nEarlier this year, I personally presented to the President, in detail and in writing, five reform proposals relating to Medicare and Medicaid that have received bipartisan support in the past.\u00a0 I asked him to consider the proposals and have since asked members of his administration to likewise give the proposals consideration.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\r\nI did not wait until an impending debt limit debate.\u00a0 Rather, I put my proposals forward in a good faith effort to begin timely discussions.\u00a0 \r\nUnfortunately, thus far I\u2019ve not received a response.\u00a0 And, the clock on Medicare and Medicaid keeps ticking.\r\nThe situation with Social Security isn\u2019t much better.\u00a0 \r\nThe Trustees of the trust funds embedded in the Social Security system, including top administration officials such as the Treasury Secretary, have, in no uncertain terms, urged Congress to act quickly on reforming the retirement and the disability insurance programs to move them toward sustainability.\u00a0 \r\nQuite simply, it would be folly to approve of yet another debt limit increase without also working to address these programs, which are the main drivers of our debts and deficits.\u00a0 \r\nTherefore, I disapprove of the President\u2019s exercise of an authority to suspend the debt limit, and I urge all of my colleagues to similarly disapprove.\u00a0 \r\nMr. President, the recent debt limit impasse and the impasse of 2011 also provided a good deal of information about lack of accountability of the Treasury Department and of our regulatory agencies.\r\nI currently serve as the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight responsibility toward the Treasury Department.\u00a0 To fulfill those responsibilities, I have been asking questions of Treasury about debt and cash management procedures.\u00a0 \r\nAnd, I have repeatedly been stonewalled.\u00a0 \r\nFor example, when we have approached the debt limit, I have asked questions about how much cash our nation has in the till, only to find that Treasury won\u2019t tell me and that they prefer that Congress rely on estimates from think tanks and Wall Street firms.\r\nFurthermore, during the most recent debt limit impasses, administration officials were busy frightening seniors, our troops, and financial market participants about whether or not they would be paid in the event that Treasury were to run out of cash. Officials also identified threats of massive financial instability stemming from a breach of the debt limit, and of potential disruptions from a downgrade of the rating on U.S. government securities.\r\nSo, naturally, I asked Treasury and, in fact, every voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council\u2014or FSOC - to provide Congress and the American people information regarding the plans they had in place to respond to such catastrophes.\u00a0 \r\nMr. President, out of close to 20 letters that I sent to FSOC members, I received only two responses.\u00a0 Apparently, the FSOC, which was empowered by the so-called Dodd-Frank Act to monitor and respond to emerging threats to financial stability, does not identify or share response plans with respect to any threat that could emerge as a result of government policies.\r\nThat being the case, I believe that we should strip the FSOC of any notional oversight of financial stability and call it what it really is: another unrestrained executive agency created only to enact additional regulations.\u00a0 \r\nAfter the fact, we have found out that Treasury and some financial regulators had plans for how to respond to a debt limit breach or a ratings downgrade.\u00a0 Yet, none of these plans were shared with Congress.\u00a0\u00a0 \r\nMr. \u00a0President, put simply, if we\u2019re going to empower a federal regulatory body like the FSOC to develop contingency plans to respond to threats to financial stability, then that body should be required to share those plans with the American people.\u00a0 Sadly, thus far, that hasn\u2019t been the case.\u00a0 \r\nAnother thing I have learned from our recent debt limit impasses is that we need to take a closer look at Treasury Department\u2019s use of so-called extraordinary measures, which have become all too ordinary.\u00a0\u00a0 \r\nThese \u201cextraordinary measures\u201d are merely ways for the Treasury Department to temporarily delay facing a debt limit increase by issuing shadow debt.\u00a0 For example, Treasury can simply declare a debt issuance suspension period and stop issuing debt that it normally would issue while, instead, effectively telling the lender: don\u2019t worry, I\u2019ll pay you back later with interest.\u00a0 \r\nI believe that authority to use these types of extraordinary measures needs to be reexamined.\r\nAs you can see, Mr. President, there are a number of problems that need to be confronted with regard to our nation\u2019s ever-growing debt.\r\nLike I said, we need to work together to address our nation\u2019s unsustainable entitlement programs.\u00a0 Otherwise, any effort to rein in our debts and deficits will amount to little more than tinkering around the edges.\u00a0 \r\nIn addition, we need to improve information sharing between Congress and the Executive Branch on issues relating to our debt.\u00a0 \r\nThe Treasury Department and our financial regulators have a lot to do with maintaining the depth, liquidity, and efficiency of the market for Treasury securities.\u00a0 And, Congress has a duty to exercise oversight over these functions.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the administration, far more often than not, opts to keep Congress in the dark on these issues. \r\nThis has to stop.\u00a0 \r\nMr. President, by using his authority to suspend the debt limit through February 7, 2014, President Obama has opted not to confront any of these serious issues.\u00a0 Instead, he\u2019s leading us even further down a path that we all already know is unsustainable.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That being the case, I plan to vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval of this debt limit suspension and I urge my colleagues to do the same.\u00a0\u00a0 I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f4565444-ef7a-4ca6-bc36-37801820a3eb", "Hatch: Obamacare Woes Bigger Than a Tech Problem", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today slammed the President\u2019s health law, saying it would be a \u201chuge mistake to simply write off the problems with ObamaCare as a simple IT problem.\u201d During a speech on the Senate floor, Hatch again called for the delay of the flawed health law that is now forcing millions of Americans to lose their existing health insurance coverage.\r\n\u201cThe healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and the President is right to recognize it as such.\u00a0 But, it would be a huge mistake to simply write off the problems with Obamacare as a simple IT problem,\u201d said Hatch. \u201cMy own position on Obamacare is very clear.\u00a0 I support repealing the law in its entirety. As more and more Americans lose their health coverage \u2013 coverage they shopped for and liked \u2013 and face outlandish costs as a result of the law, I believe that position will eventually be vindicated.\u201d\r\n\u201cBut, in the meantime, I think we can all agree that the law is simply not ready for prime time and that, at the very least, it should be delayed so that we can protect the American people from further harm.\u00a0 I\u2019ve made this call before and I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll make it again,\u201d Hatch concluded.\r\nA staunch opponent of the President\u2019s health law, Hatch has introduced legislation that would repeal the two central pillars of the Affordable Care Act, the employer and individual mandates, and has bipartisan legislation repealing the medical device tax that partially funds the law. This Fall,\u00a0 Hatch introduced the Trust But Verify Act, to delay the launch of the exchanges, where people will buy their Washington-mandated insurance, until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can certify that the Data Hubs, the online market place to buy insurance is secure.\r\nBelow is the text of Hatch\u2019s full speech delivered on the Senate floor today:\r\nMr. President, here in Washington and, indeed, throughout the country, everyone is talking about the Obamacare website.\u00a0 \r\nNo doubt, that is a serious concern. \r\nThe healthcare.gov website has been, to put it bluntly, a debacle.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know of a single member of Congress \u2013 Democrat or Republican \u2013 who would say otherwise.\u00a0 \r\nThat said, we need to be clear about something: the problems with Obamacare go much deeper than a faulty website.\u00a0 \r\nSure, the administration would have the American people believe that the problems with this law are simply technical in nature and that, once they bring in technical experts to fix the website, all will be right with world.\r\nBut, let\u2019s not kid ourselves.\u00a0 The problems with Obamacare are fundamental and systemic.\r\nThe administration may very well get the website up and running in the next few weeks.\u00a0 But, that won\u2019t fix the health care law.\u00a0 \r\nI\u2019d like to take just a few minutes today to talk about some of the problems facing Obamacare that have nothing to do with the website.\u00a0 \r\nWhen he was trying to get the law passed, President Obama repeatedly promised Americans that \u201cif you like your current health plan, you\u2019ll be able to keep it.\u201d\u00a0 \r\nThis promise was central to the President\u2019s efforts to sell Obamacare to the American people.\u00a0 And, as it turns out, it was all a lie.\u00a0 Now, even the White House admits that millions of Americans will not be able to keep their health plan under the law.\u00a0 \r\nAnd, if recent news reports are to be believed, they\u2019ve known this for years.\u00a0 \r\nExperts have predicted that as many as 16 million Americans may lose their existing coverage due to Obamacare\u2019s new requirements.\u00a0 And, according to a NBC News story from yesterday, the Obama Administration has known about this for at least three years.\r\nConsumers throughout the country are already receiving cancellation letters from their insurance providers.\u00a0 \r\nFor example, in New Jersey, 800,000 individuals are being dropped from their existing plans.\u00a0 Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people informing them their current coverage will end.\u00a0 And, Florida Blue is ending policies of 300,000 customers due to Obamacare.\r\nThis isn\u2019t some unforeseen or unintended consequence of the law.\u00a0 On the contrary, it is precisely what was intended when the law was put into place.\r\nAs you know, Mr. President, the President\u2019s health care law includes a mountain of new mandates and requirements for health insurance plans.\u00a0 Any plans that fail to meet those onerous requirements are invalidated under the law.\r\nTrue enough, the law provides that plans that were in effect as of March 2010 will be grandfathered in, allowing consumers who prefer to keep those policies to do so even if the plans don\u2019t meet the law\u2019s requirements.\u00a0 \r\nHowever, the Department of Health and Human Services has, through regulations, all but eliminated the protections enjoyed by those in existing plans by saying that the grandfathering provision does not apply to plans that have undergone any changes \u2013 even small changes to deductibles or copayments \u2013 since 2010.\u00a0 \r\nUnder this requirement, many of plans that were in place before passage of Obamacare \u2013 particularly those in the individual health insurance market \u2013 will fail to pass muster.\r\nThat is why we\u2019re seeing hundreds of thousands of Americans being dropped from their current insurance plans and why the same fate is certain to befall millions more.\u00a0 \r\nLike I said, Mr. President, the Obama Administration knew about these problems a long time ago.\u00a0 In fact, regulations issued in July 2010 estimated that, because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, 40 to 67 percent of consumers will not be able to keep their policy.\r\nLet me repeat that: the administration knew in July 2010 that at least 40 to 67 percent of consumers in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans in place.\r\nYet, the President never took back his promise: \u201cIf you like your current health plan, you\u2019ll be able to keep it.\u201d\r\nThis, quite frankly, is preposterous.\u00a0 \r\nThe response we\u2019re getting from the administration is that, sure, many people will lose their existing health insurance, but it will be replaced by better, cheaper options.\r\nThis claim is also at odds with the facts.\r\nFor many people, health expenses will increase under the new plans as a result of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays.\u00a0 \r\nOne study from the Manhattan Institute found that individual market premiums will increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \r\nFor others, the new plans may not cover visits to their current doctor or the hospital they\u2019ve used in the past.\u00a0 That\u2019s because insurers are reducing the number of doctors and hospitals covered by plans in the exchanges in order to reduce premium prices.\u00a0\r\nThese changes are a direct result of Obamacare\u2019s new requirements and mandates.\r\nI have received letters from my constituents all over Utah who are scared, who are angry, and who are confused about the changes they\u2019re facing.\r\nFor example, Brenton in Provo, Utah currently has a high deductible plan and uses a Health Savings Account.\u00a0 This arrangement works well for Brenton and his family, and they would like to keep it.\u00a0 Unfortunately, Brenton\u2019s plan has been canceled due to Obamacare.\u00a0 And, the plan he will be required to purchase is more expensive and includes coverage he doesn\u2019t want.\u00a0 \r\nThere is also Kathy in Salt Lake City, who wrote to tell me her deductible will increase from $3000 to $5000, her copays for doctor visits will increase to 30 percent, and her copays for prescription drugs will increase to 50 percent.\u00a0 \r\nKathy let me know that as a result of these changes, her health care expenses will now be higher than her income.\r\nEven those who were in favor of the law are now finding that it is not being implemented as they expected.\u00a0 \r\nA recent LA Times article profiled a young woman who was shocked by the 50 percent rate hike she received as a result of the health care law.\u00a0 She was quoted as saying, \u201cI was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.\u201d \r\nThat\u2019s a refrain I think we\u2019ll be hearing from a number of people who supported \u201chealth care reform.\u201d\u00a0 \r\nIncreased costs aren\u2019t the only problem that consumers will be facing under Obamacare.\u00a0 There are other serious, more subtle problems that have yet to be addressed. \r\nFor example, some consumers may have their personal information compromised by an Obamacare Navigator or by submitting an application through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace, the Federal Data Services Hub, or one of the Affordable Care Act call centers.\r\nSocial Security numbers, employment information, birth dates, health records, and tax returns are among the personal data that will be transmitted to this Data Hub, resulting in an unprecedented amount of information being collected in one place by a government entity.\u00a0 \r\nEvery piece of information someone would need to steal an individual\u2019s identity or access their confidential credit information would be available at the fingertips of a skilled hacker, providing a goldmine for data thieves and a staggering security threat to consumers.\u00a0\r\nThe entire system, including the Data Hub, a new information-sharing network that allows state and federal agencies to verify this information, has not gone under any independent review to determine if the data that is entered is secure.\u00a0 \r\nThis means that individuals\u2019 personal and financial records may be at serious risk of becoming available to data thieves.\u00a0 \r\nI\u2019ve already been to the floor several times to discuss these issues.\u00a0 I\u2019m here again today because, as of yet, there has been no solution.\u00a0 \r\nIn fact, the Obamacare exchanges are less than a month old and data breaches are already occurring at the state level.\u00a0 \r\nA recent CBS News story featured a Minnesota insurance broker who was looking for information about assisting with Obamacare implementation.\u00a0 Instead what landed in his inbox last month was a document filled with the names, Social Security numbers, and other pieces of personal information belonging to his fellow Minnesotans.\r\nIn one of the first breaches of the new Obamacare online marketplaces, an employee of the Minnesota marketplace, called MNsure, accidentally emailed him a document containing personally identifying information for more than 2,400 insurance agents.\u00a0 While the incident was resolved, the broker said it raised serious questions for him as to whether those that sign up for MNsure can be confident their data is safe.\r\nThese types of incidents are only going to increase as time goes on if rigorous testing is not performed to ensure that the Data Hub is sufficiently secure.\u00a0 \r\nDespite assurances by the Chief Technology Officer for the Administration in early September that \u201cwe have completed security testing and received certification to operate,\u201d we all now know that, in fact, all the testing had not been completed until just days before the October 1 launch date and that no third party had a chance to review it.\u00a0 \r\nBut there is much that we don\u2019t know.\u00a0 \r\nWhat kind of testing was done?\u00a0 \r\nWho did the testing?\u00a0 \r\nWhat kinds of things did they look for?\u00a0 \r\nWhat were the results?\u00a0 \r\nAnd, perhaps most importantly, what are the risks of using the website?\r\nTo help get answers to these questions, today, several of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and I are sending a letter to Secretary Sebelius asking detailed questions about the testing protocols, what waivers were received with respect to the testing requirements and any and all results of the limited testing that did occur.\u00a0 \r\nHopefully that will enable Congress and the American people to better understand exactly what is broken with the system and help to ensure it does not happen again.\r\nThese questions and problems demonstrate why it is imperative that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) independently verify that sufficient privacy and security controls are in place for the Data Hub and the entire Federal Marketplace so that Congress has independent assurance that the necessary controls exist and that taxpayers know their personal information is secure.\u00a0 \r\nThat is why I introduced S. 1525, the Trust But Verify Act, which calls on the GAO to conduct such a review and delays implementation of the exchanges until the review is completed.\u00a0 The bill currently has 32 Senate cosponsors.\u00a0 \r\nAs you can see, Mr. President, the problems with Obamacare are numerous and fundamental.\u00a0 Like I\u2019ve said before, this law was bad policy when we debated it.\u00a0 It was bad policy when the Democrats forced it through Congress.\u00a0 And, it remains bad policy today.\r\nI have little doubt that the administration can eventually get the website up and running.\u00a0 They would have us believe that, once that that task is accomplished, everything will be fine.\r\nBut, that is simply not the case.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They can\u2019t say that everything will be fine when millions of Americans are losing their existing health coverage as a direct result of the health care law.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 They can\u2019t say that everything will be fine when health care costs are continuing to skyrocket even though the President claimed that his health law would bring costs down.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 And, they can\u2019t say everything will be fine when consumers\u2019 personal information is at serious risk because the administration didn\u2019t take the proper precautions with its huge new data system.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Like I said, Mr. President, the healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and the President is right to recognize it as such.\u00a0 But, it would be a huge mistake to simply write off the problems with Obamacare as a simple IT problem.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 My own position on Obamacare is very clear.\u00a0 I support repealing the law in its entirety.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As more and more Americans lose their health coverage \u2013 coverage they shopped for and liked \u2013 and face outlandish costs as a result of the law, I believe that position will eventually be vindicated.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But, in the meantime, I think we can all agree that the law is simply not ready for prime time and that, at the very least, it should be delayed so that we can protect the American people from further harm.\u00a0 \r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019ve made this call before and I\u2019m sure I\u2019ll make it again.\u00a0 \r\nToday, with all the new information we\u2019ve received \u2013 the broken website, the security problems, the skyrocketing costs, and the millions of Americans losing existing coverage \u2013 I would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will begin to see the light on this. \r\nI would hope that they will finally see what happens when one party tries to take on something as vast and complicated as our health care system all on its own.\u00a0 \r\nAnd, I would hope that they will work with us to come up with real solutions to our nation\u2019s health care problems.\u00a0 \r\nI\u2019ll keep waiting, Mr. President.\u00a0 And, if the problems we\u2019ve seen in the last few weeks are any indication, I shouldn\u2019t have to wait too much longer.\u00a0\u00a0 I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f5e42641-9f64-48db-b913-e98cd549aae4", "Senators Ask Secretary Sebelius Whether Privacy, Security Standards Met For Obamacare Website", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today the eleven Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, led by Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), wrote to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking whether all federal privacy and security standards were met prior to the launch of HealthCare.gov, the website to sign up for ObamaCare.\u00a0\r\nIn a letter to Secretary Sebelius, the Senators wrote, \u201c[W]e are troubled that day after day more issues arise which illustrate that the website was simply not ready to launch on October 1.\u00a0 While we recognize that the website\u2019s operational issues are being worked on and will likely be resolved eventually, serious questions remain as to the privacy and security of the very detailed personal information being transmitted through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and what testing, if any, occurred or is occurring to ensure that information is secure.\u201d\r\nThe Senators asked Sebelius to provide answers and information to a series of questions detailing what level of security and privacy measures were undertaken prior to the launch of the website to safeguard the privacy of those Americans signing up for coverage through healthCare.gov.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nSenators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) joined Hatch in sending the letter today.\r\nThe letter to the Secretary is below and can be found HERE: \u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe Honorable Kathleen Sebelius  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  200 Independence Avenue, S.W.  Washington, D.C. 20201\r\nDear Secretary Sebelius:\r\nAs Members of the Committee on Finance (Committee), which has jurisdiction over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), we are seeking information about the various types of testing which were utilized to ensure that the healthcare.gov website and underlying system (hereinafter collectively referred to as \u201cwebsite\u201d) met all Federal privacy and security standards before going live on October 1, 2013. Additionally, we are requesting detailed information about security threats received since the website launch, as well as measures taken by your agency and contractors to ensure website security. \r\nThe Administration\u2019s Chief Technology Officer, Todd Park, publicly stated on September 11, 2013, that \u201cafter over two years of work, it [healthcare.gov] is built and ready for operation, and we have completed security testing and certification to operate.\u201d[1] Despite these and other assurances, we are troubled that day after day more issues arise which illustrate that the website was simply not ready to launch on October 1.\u00a0 While we recognize that the website\u2019s operational issues are being worked on and will likely be resolved eventually, serious questions remain as to the privacy and security of the very detailed personal information being transmitted through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and what testing, if any, occurred or is occurring to ensure that information is secure.\r\nIt is our understanding that each Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) system is required by law to obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO) certification that attests the system has met all testing requirements before it is placed into operation.\u00a0 CMS\u2019 own internal procedures require that \u201c. . . security controls be operational, effective, managed, and continuously monitored.\u00a0 Controls must meet mandatory requirements, as defined in the current CMS Information Security Acceptable Risk Safeguards (ARS) CMS Minimum Security Requirements (CMSR).\u201d[2]\u00a0 Additionally, as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), you are responsible for ensuring that your agency\u2019s information systems, including the website, fully comply with security requirements imposed by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).[3]\u00a0 The website must also comply with the Office of Management and Budget\u2019s (OMB) implementing policies including Appendix III of OMB circular A-130, and guidance and standards from the Department of Commerce\u2019s National Institute of Standards and Technology.\r\nTo help us better understand how CMS ensured that these and other standards were met, please provide us with the following information:\r\n \r\nDescribe in detail the security testing that was completed on all aspects of the healthcare.gov website before October 1, 2013.\u00a0 Please include copies of all testing certification or other documents that indicate the results of all testing that occurred.\r\nPlease provide all timelines, dashboards or other tracking mechanisms developed to track the testing requirements.\r\nWas CMS/HHS granted a Privacy Act exemption by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the website or any related applications?\u00a0 If so, please provide documentation for the exemption.\r\nWere any other security testing exemptions granted for the website or any related applications by OMB?\u00a0 If so, please provide all supporting documentation.\r\nWas all testing completed to meet the standards set forth by the FISMA?\u00a0 Please provide copies of all testing results and certifications that show all FISMA standards were met.\r\nWas a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) completed by CMS prior to the website going live?\u00a0 If so, please provide a copy of the PIA.\r\nAre reports generated on a regular basis regarding the security of the website and its related applications?\u00a0 How often are reports generated and what office (and whom) within CMS received those reports?\r\nWhat alerts are generated if an outside entity attempts to inappropriately gain access to sensitive information submitted to the website?\u00a0 \r\n\r\nSince October 1, 2013, how many times has an outside entity attempted to inappropriately or unlawfully gain access to sensitive information?\r\nHave any of these attempts been successful? \r\nProvide a log of all alerts, or whatever method of tracking is used to track alerts, as well as the outcome of each alert (i.e., attempt was successful, not successful, etc.).\r\nWhich contractors have access to user data submitted to the website?\r\n\r\nHow many employees at each contractor have access to this data?\r\nProvide names of the contractors that are responsible for staffing and operating all call centers associated with the website.\r\nWith respect to each contractor retained by CMS to work on the website or the call center:\r\n\r\nWhat measures are in place to ensure that these contractors appropriately secure data?\r\nWhat training have these employees completed regarding how to handle sensitive data?\r\nTo date, have there been any instances when contractors have inappropriately disclosed or used data?\r\nIf so, what steps has CMS taken against the contractor and/or the employee?\r\nWhat security clearance is required for contractor employees who handle personally identifiable information (PII)?\r\n\r\nHave all contractor employees been cleared to handle PII?\u00a0 If not, when does CMS anticipate that all employees will be cleared?\r\nIf any contractor employees are working with only a temporary clearance, what additional steps has CMS taken to ensure that these employees do not improperly disclose sensitive data?\r\nTo your knowledge, have there been any improper disclosures of PII submitted by users of the website or the call center?\u00a0 If so, explain the circumstances and CMS\u2019 reaction.\r\nIn the event that the website becomes no longer functional or suffers a loss of PII, does CMS have a disaster recovery plan?\u00a0 If so, please provide a copy of the plan.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\nWherever possible, please provide the information requested in electronic format.\u00a0 Thank you for your prompt attention to this request and we respectfully request receiving all information by no later than December 3, 2013.\u00a0\r\nSincerely,\r\n\n  \r\n\r\n[1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-11/obamacare-computer-network-completes-security-tests-u-dot-s-dot-says.\r\n\r\n\r\n[2] CMS Risk Management Handbook, Volume II, Procedure 7.8, August 17, 2012 (Document Number: CMS-CISO-2012-vII-pr7.8).", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=ff8b0792-6805-455d-a886-ec544bd6c15e", "The Need for a Conservative Reform Agenda", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Mike Lee delivered the following speech at The Heritage Foundation as he introduced four legislative proposals that are part of a larger conservative reform agenda:\r\nWhats Next For Conservatives", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=29547372-2514-4890-a102-f75656a424b4", "Excerpts from Lee\u2019s Speech on a New Conservative Reform Agenda", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) will give a speech at the Heritage Foundation at 2:30 pm EST on the way forward for conservatives and the need for a new conservative reform agenda. \u00a0 The following are selected excerpts from the speech: \u201cThe ideas that defined and propelled the Reagan Revolution did not come down from a mountain etched in stone tablets. They were forged in an open, roiling, diverse debate about how conservatism could truly meet the challenges of that day. That debate invited all conservatives and as we know, elevated the best\u2026 Together, that generation of conservatives transformed a movement that was anti-statist, anti-communist, and anti-establishment, and made it pro-reform. Contrary to the establishment\u2019s complaints, conservatives in the late 1970s did not start a \u201ccivil war.\u201d They started a (mostly) civil debate. Because of that confident and deeply conservative choice \u2013 to argue rather than quarrel, to persuade rather than simply purge - the vanguards of the establishment never knew what hit them.\u00a0 The bottom line was that in 1976, the conservative movement found a leader for the ages, yet it still failed.\u00a0 By 1980, the movement had forged an agenda for its time and only then did it succeed.\u201d \u2026 \u201cIt\u2019s time for another Great Debate, and we should welcome all input. Grassroots and establishment. Conservatives and moderates. Libertarians and traditionalists. Interventionists and non-interventionists. Economic conservatives and social conservatives. All are part of our movement, and all are vital to our success \u2013 so all should be welcome in this debate. There are still nearly three years before Republicans will have a chance to select a new, unifying conservative leader. But together we can start debating and developing a new, unifying conservative agenda right now.\u201d \u2026 \u201cI submit that the great challenge of our generation is America\u2019s growing crisis of stagnation and sclerosis\u00a0 - a crisis that comes down to a shortage of opportunities.\u00a0 This opportunity crisis presents itself in three principal ways: immobility among the poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, where families just can\u2019t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top, where political and economic elites unfairly profit at everyone else\u2019s expense. The Republican Party should tackle these three crises head on.\u201d \u2026 \u201cTo do my part, today I want to talk about four pieces of legislation specifically designed to address four leading challenges facing middle-class families today: the cost of raising children, the difficulties of work-life balance, the time Americans lose away from work and home, stuck in traffic, and the rising costs of and restricted access to quality higher education. These bills won\u2019t solve every problem under the sun. Raising a family isn\u2019t supposed to be easy. But each would restore to working families more of the freedom they deserve to pursue their happiness: to earn a good living and build a good life.\u201d \u2026 \u201cEspecially in the wake of recent controversies, many conservatives are more frustrated with the establishment than ever before. And we have every reason to be.\u00a0 But however justified, frustration is not a platform. Anger is not an agenda. And outrage, as a habit, is not even conservative. Outrage, resentment, and intolerance are gargoyles of the Left. For us, optimism is not just a message \u2013 it\u2019s a principle. American conservatism, at its core, is about gratitude, and cooperation, and trust, and above all hope. It is also about inclusion. Successful political movements are about identifying converts, not heretics. This, too, is part of the challenge before us.\u201d The full text of the speech can be found below:\r\nWhats Next For Conservatives", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=a752e38d-3589-4320-811f-2187636b377c", "What's Next for Conservatives", "2013-10-29", "2013", "2013-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Whats Next For Conservatives\r\n\r\n\r\n\u201cWhat\u2019s Next for Conservatives\u201d\r\nRemarks to the Heritage Foundation\r\nU.S. Senator Mike Lee\r\nOctober 29, 2013\r\nThank you very much. It\u2019s wonderful to be back at the Heritage Foundation.It has been quite a month in Washington.\r\nIt began with our effort to stop Obamacare \u2014 a goal that all Republicans share even if we have not always agreed about just how to pursue it. And it is ending with powerful practical proof of just why stopping Obamacare is so essential.\u00a0\r\nThis law is unaffordable and unfair; it\u2019s getting worse all the time. As of today, President Obama\u2019s policy is to fine any American who does not buy a product that his bungled website will not sell them.\r\nAnd they call us unreasonable.\r\nEvery week, thousands of Americans get letters from their insurance companies, announcing their suspension of coverage, or shocking price increases. Because of Obamacare, Americans are losing their jobs, wages, and hours. And when in July the president exempted big businesses from the hardships of this law, but not ordinary Americans, I felt I had to take a stand.\u00a0\r\nI am proud of my friend Ted Cruz and the dozens of others \u2013 including Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans \u2013 who fought Obamacare, continue to fight it, and will not stop fighting it.\u00a0\r\nBut a month like the one we have been through should lead us not only to re-commit to this essential, ongoing struggle, but also to step back and ask ourselves where we should be headed more generally.\r\nWhat do we do next, not only to stop Obamacare but also to advance a larger, positive vision of America, and craft a practical plan to get us there? What\u2019s next for conservatives? That is the question I would like to try to answer today.\r\nOne of conservatives\u2019 defining virtues is our insistence on learning from history. And to help answer the question, \u201cwhat\u2019s next?,\u201d I think the most instructive history that conservatives can learn from today is our own.\r\nIn particular, I refer to the history of the conservative movement and the Republican Party in the late 1970s. There are many things conservatives today should take from that era, including hope and encouragement but also an urgent challenge.\r\nAllow me to begin at the beginning.\u00a0\r\nBy 1977, the Republican Party was in disarray. The party establishment had been discredited by political failure and policy debacles, foreign and domestic. A new generation of grassroots conservatives was rising up to challenge the establishment.\r\nThe culmination of that challenge was Ronald Reagan\u2019s 1976 primary campaign against a far-less conservative, establishment incumbent. That campaign failed, of course, and was derided by Washington insiders as a foolish \u201ccivil war\u201d that ultimately served only to elect Democrats.\u00a0\r\nIn other words, we have been here before. And of course, we know now that Reagan and the conservative movement were vindicated in 1980.\r\nSo it is tempting for conservatives today to believe that history is on the verge of repeating itself, that our struggles with the Republican establishment are only a prelude to pre-ordained victory and that our own vindication \u2013 our generation\u2019s 1980 - is just around the corner.\r\nBut there is still a piece missing, a glaring difference between the successful conservative challenge to the Washington establishment in the late 1970s, and our challenge to the establishment today.\r\nMuch of the difference can be found in what happened between 1976 and 1980 \u2013 the hard, heroic work of translating conservatism\u2019s bedrock principles into new and innovative policy reforms.\r\nIn The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk observed that \u201cconservatives inherit from [Edmund] Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time.\u201d\r\nThat is precisely what the conservatives of the late 1970s did. The ideas that defined and propelled the Reagan Revolution did not come down from a mountain etched in stone tablets, they were forged in an open, roiling, diverse debate about how conservatism could truly meet the challenges of that day. That debate invited all conservatives and as we know, elevated the best.\r\nThere was Jack Kemp, advancing supply-side economics to combat economic stagnancy. \u00a0There were James Buckley and Henry Hyde, taking up the cause of the unborn after Roe v. Wade.\u00a0 There was Milton Friedman, promoting the practical and moral superiority of free enterprise. \u00a0There were Cold Warriors like Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpartrick, challenging the premise of peaceful coexistence and moral equivalence with the Soviets.\r\nThere were Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, arguing that the \u201cmediating institutions\u201d of civil society protected and promoted human happiness more effectively than big government programs. There were Professors Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, challenging the received wisdom of constitutional interpretation laid down by the Warren Court. There were think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the new Cato Institute, and a flowering of grassroots organizations around the country.\r\nAnd of course, in the middle of it all, there were Paul Weyrich, Ed Fuelner, Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation, specifically founded to chart a new, conservative direction for public policy in America.\r\nTogether, that generation of conservatives transformed a movement that was anti-statist, anti-communist, and anti-establishment and made it pro-reform.\r\nContrary to the establishment\u2019s complaints, conservatives in the late 1970s did not start a \u201ccivil war.\u201d They started a (mostly) civil debate. Because of that confident and deeply conservative choice \u2013 to argue rather than quarrel, to persuade rather than simply purge - the vanguards of the establishment never knew what hit them.\r\nThe bottom line was that in 1976, the conservative movement found a leader for the ages, yet it still failed. \u00a0By 1980, the movement had forged an agenda for its time and only then did it succeed.\r\nThat, my fellow conservatives, is the lesson our generation must take from our movement\u2019s \u201crevolutionary era\u201d \u2013 and the enormous and exhilarating challenge it presents to us today.\r\nWhat that generation did \u2013 comprehensively re-expressing conservative convictions to fit the time \u2013 has not been done since. Conservative activists and intellectuals are still providing new energy and producing new ideas. But on the whole, elected Republicans and candidates have not held up our end. \u00a0Instead of emulating those earlier conservatives, too many Republicans today mimic them \u2013 still advocating policies from a bygone age.\r\nIt\u2019s hard to believe, but by the time we reach November 2016, we will be about as far \u2013 chronologically speaking \u2013 from Reagan\u2019s election as Reagan\u2019s election was from D-Day! Yet as the decades pass and a new generation of Americans faces a new generation of problems, the party establishment clings to its 1970s agenda like a security blanket.\r\nThe result is that to many Americans today, especially to the underprivileged and middle class, or those who have come of age or immigrated since Reagan left office the Republican Party may not seem to have much of a relevant reform message at all.\r\nThis is the reason the G.O.P. can seem so out of touch. And it is also the reason we find ourselves in such internal disarray.\r\nThe gaping hole in the middle of the Republican Party today \u2013 the one that separates the grassroots from establishment leaders \u2013 is precisely the size and shape of a new, unifying conservative reform agenda.\r\nFor years, we have tried to bridge that gulf with tactics and personalities and spin. But it doesn\u2019t work. To revive and reunify our movement, we must fill the void with new and innovative policy ideas. Today, as it was a generation ago, the establishment will not produce that agenda. And so, once again, conservatives must. We must. And three recent efforts show that we still can.\r\nJim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake\u2019s crusade against earmarks, Paul Ryan\u2019s heroic work on Medicare reform, and Rand Paul\u2019s stand against domestic drone-strike authority all demonstrate that thoughtful, idea-driven conservatism is as powerful today as it has ever been.\r\nIt\u2019s time for another Great Debate, and we should welcome all input. Grassroots and establishment, conservatives and moderates, libertarians and traditionalists, interventionists and non-interventionists, economic conservatives and social conservatives: all are part of our movement, and all are vital to our success \u2013 so all should be welcome in this debate.\r\nThere are still nearly three years before Republicans will have a chance to select a new, unifying conservative leader. But together we can start debating and developing a new, unifying conservative agenda right now.\r\nWhere do we begin? A generation ago, conservatives forged an agenda to meet the great challenges facing Americans in the late 1970s: inflation, poor growth, Soviet aggression, along with a dispiriting pessimism about the future of the nation and their own families.\r\nI submit that the great challenge of our generation is America\u2019s growing crisis of stagnation and sclerosis \u2013 a crisis that comes down to a shortage of opportunities.\r\nThis opportunity crisis presents itself in three principal ways: immobility among the poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, where families just can\u2019t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top, where political and economic elites unfairly profit at everyone else\u2019s expense.\r\nThe Republican Party should tackle these three crises head on.\r\nFirst, we need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty, upward-mobility agenda designed not simply help people in poverty, but to help and empower them to get out.\r\nHere, my home state of Utah can be a guide. A recent study found the Salt Lake City metropolitan area to be the most upwardly mobile region in the United States. \u00a0In an addition to a well-managed, limited government where jobs and opportunity abound, Utah is home to an enormously successful private welfare system led by churches, businesses, and community groups and volunteers.\r\nWe understand that, as it is lived in America, freedom doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re on your own. Freedom means we\u2019re all in this together.\r\nThis agenda must include but also transcend welfare reform. Additionally, we need to reform education, housing, immigration, health care, and our criminal justice and prison systems.\r\nThis new agenda must recognize that work for able-bodied adults is not a necessary evil, but an essential pathway to personal happiness and prosperity. And it should also force Republicans and Democrats to acknowledge that there is another marriage debate in this country \u2013 one concerning fatherless children, economic inequality, and broken communities \u2013 that deserves as much public attention as the other.\r\nSecond, we need a new, comprehensive anti-cronyism agenda, to break up the corrupt nexus of big government, big business, and big special interests. We need a new corporate tax code and regulatory system to eliminate lobbyists\u2019 loopholes and giveaways, level the playing field between businesses, big and small, and foster a dynamic, globally competitive private sector.\r\nWe need to end subsidies that unfairly favor some businesses and industries over others. And the Republican Party must make a fundamental commitment to end its support for corporate welfare in any form \u2013 including for the Big Banks.\r\nThe Left today no longer represents the \u201clittle guy,\u201d but the crony clients of the ever-expanding special-interest state. Progressives have become the Party of Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. We must become the party of Main Street, everywhere.\r\nWhich brings me to the third essential piece of our new agenda: a new conservatism of the working and middle class. Today, working families\u2019 take-home pay is flat, but the staples of middle-class security and opportunity \u2013 health care, education, home ownership, work-life balance, and children \u2013 are becoming harder to afford all the time.\r\nProgressives say we just need more programs to give working families more government money. But as we have seen once again over the last five years, big government creates opportunity for the middlemen at the expense of the middle class. It only masks the broken policies that artificially raise costs and restrict access in the first place. Instead, conservatives need new ideas to address the root causes of those problems.\r\nThe first and most important policy goal Republicans must adopt to improve the lives of middle-class families is, and will remain, the full repeal of Obamacare.\r\nIt\u2019s important to understand why. Health care is one of the main reasons why the cost of living in the middle class is increasing too quickly for many Americans to keep up. At the same time, it is the main reason why government spending and debt are out of control.\r\nThe law the Democrats enacted on a party-line vote in 2010 is going to make both of those problems worse \u2013 accelerating health care costs both for families and the government.\r\nAt the same time, Obamacare poses very serious threats to our constitutional system, to the relationship between Washington and the states, to individual liberty and conscience rights, to the strength of our economy, and to the quality of our health care system.\r\nThat puts health care right at the center of what conservatives need to be thinking about. And it means our movement has to be intensely engaged not only in the fight to repeal, but also in the debate to replace Obamacare.\r\nThat debate is not over. It\u2019s only just beginning.\r\nIt took Obamacare to get Republican health care policy innovation off the sidelines, but we\u2019re finally in the game. And today, conservative ideas are not only superior to Obamacare \u2013 they are superior to the old status-quo before Obamacare.\r\nThe House Republican Study Committee has introduced a comprehensive health reform plan \u2013 led by Representatives Steve Scalise and Phil Roe. The Heritage Foundation proposed its own health care reform package as part of the Saving the American Dream plan, which I introduced in the Senate last year. It included, among other things, a universal tax credit to buy health insurance, with extra help for those with lower incomes.\r\nI know my friend Paul Ryan and others are working on their own health care plans that will continue to improve the debate.\r\nAnd this is as it should be. Too many in Washington seem to believe that on any issue, Republicans should either have one plan \u2013 one that everyone supports in lockstep \u2013 or no plans. But unity cannot come at the expense of creativity. The day will come when Republicans need a health care plan \u2013 today we need ten!\r\nConservatives are supposed to believe in the wisdom of markets. So let\u2019s trust the marketplace of ideas. If we want policy innovation, we need to innovate policy!\r\nOn health care, we have been. And we need more of that kind of innovation \u2013 especially to meet the broader range of problems confronting the middle class.\r\nTo do my part, today I want to talk about four pieces of legislation specifically designed to address four leading challenges facing middle-class families today: the cost of raising children; the difficulties of work-life balance; the time Americans lose away from work and home, stuck in traffic; and the rising costs of and restricted access to quality higher education.\r\nThese bills won\u2019t solve every problem under the sun. Raising a family isn\u2019t supposed to be easy. But each would restore to working families more of the freedom they deserve to pursue their happiness: to earn a good living and build a good life.\r\nPerhaps the most basic challenge facing middle-class families is how expensive it has become for couples to simply start and grow their families: the exploding costs of raising children.\r\nAccording to the Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child to maturity in the United States today is about $300,000. Even adjusting for inflation, that\u2019s 15% higher than in our parents\u2019 generation. But even that number doesn\u2019t count foregone wages, or childcare and college, both of which have seen rampant inflation in recent decades as well.\r\nAll told, according to demography writer Jonathan Last, \u201cyou\u2019re talking $1.1 million to raise a single child.\u201d\r\nAs Last puts it, for a family making the median income:\r\n\u201cHaving a baby is like buying six houses, all at once. Except that you can\u2019t (legally) sell them \u2013 and after 13 years they\u2019ll tell you they hate you.\u201d\r\nHere again, Democrats say the solution is new programs to give parents more of other people\u2019s money. I say we let middle-class parents keep more of their own money!\r\nAnd so tomorrow, I will be introducing in the Senate the \u201cFamily Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act.\u201d My plan calls for a 15% tax rate on all income up to $87,850 \u2013 or $175,700 for married couples. Income above that threshold would be taxed at 35%. Like any good conservative tax-reform plan, my bill also simplifies the code, eliminating or reforming most deductions.\r\nBut the heart of the plan is a new, additional $2,500 per-child tax credit that can offset parents\u2019 income and payroll-tax liability. This last point is crucial. Many middle-class parents may pay no income taxes \u2013 but they do pay taxes. Working parents are not free riders.\r\nActually, when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, parents pay twice: first when they pay their payroll taxes, just like everyone else, and then again, by bearing the enormous costs of raising their kids, who will grow up to not only pay taxes, but cure diseases, and invent the next iPhone, and most importantly, provide their parents with grandkids!\r\nSo my plan eliminates this anti-family bias in the tax code, while improving pro-growth incentives for the economy.\r\nUnder my plan, a married couple with two children making the national median income of $51,000 would see a tax cut of roughly $5,000 per year. For middle-class families, that\u2019s money \u2013 their own money, right away \u2013 to get out of debt, move into a new neighborhood with better schools, afford childcare, help a mom or dad scale back from full time to part time, or even to stay at home with young children. That is pro-family, pro-growth conservative reform.\r\nAnother struggle facing working families is the constant challenge of work-life balance. Parents today need to juggle work, home, kids, and community. For many families, especially with young children, their most precious commodity is time.\r\nBut today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. That\u2019s because many of those laws were written decades ago, when most women didn\u2019t work outside the home. Because of these laws, an hourly employee who works overtime is not allowed to take comp-time or flex time. Even if she prefers it, her boss can\u2019t even offer it.\r\nToday, if a working mom or dad stays late at the office on Monday and Tuesday, and instead of receiving extra pay wants to get compensated by leaving early on Friday to spend the afternoon with the kids\u2026 that could be violating federal law.\r\nThat sounds unfair, especially to parents. But how do we know for sure? Because Congress gave a special exemption from that law for government employees. This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available to government bureaucrats should be available to the citizens they serve.\u00a0\r\nIn May, the House of Representatives passed the \u201cWorking Families Flexibility Act of 2013,\u201d sponsored by Representative Martha Roby of Alabama, to equalize flex-time rules for all workers. \u00a0And this week I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate.\u00a0\r\nThere are real problems in this world, some of which must be addressed by government action. The fact that most working parents would prefer to spend more time with their families is not one of those problems. And Congress needs to stop punishing them for trying to do so.\u00a0\r\nThe federal government also needs to open up America\u2019s transportation system to diversity and experimentation, so that Americans can spend more time with their families in more affordable homes, and less time stuck in maddening traffic.\r\nHouse-hunting middle class families today often face a Catch-22. They can stretch their finances to near bankruptcy to afford a home close to work. Or they can choose a home in a more affordable neighborhood so far away from work that they miss soccer games, piano recitals, and family dinner while stuck in gridlocked traffic.\r\nThe solution is not more government-subsidized mortgages or housing programs. A real solution involves building more roads. More roads, bridges, lanes, and mass-transit systems. Properly planned and located, these projects would help create new jobs, new communities, more affordable homes, shorter commuting times, and greater opportunity for businesses and families.\r\nTransportation infrastructure is one of the things government is supposed to do \u2013 and conservatives should make sure it is done exceptionally well. Unfortunately, since completing the Interstate Highway System decades ago, the federal government has gotten pretty bad at maintaining and improving our nation\u2019s transportation infrastructure.\r\nToday, the federal highway program is funded by a gasoline tax of 18.4 cents on every gallon sold at the pump. That money is supposed to be going into steel, concrete, and asphalt in the ground. Instead, too much of it is being siphoned off by bureaucrats and special interests in Washington.\r\nAnd so Congressman Tom Graves and I are going to introduce the Transportation Empowerment Act. Under our bill, the federal gas tax would be phased down over five years from 18.4 cents per gallon, to 3.7 cents. And highway authority would be transferred proportionately from the federal government to the states.\r\nUnder our new system, Americans would no longer have to send significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached. Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects.\r\nSome communities could choose to build more roads, while others might prefer to repair old ones. Some might build highways, others light-rail. And all would be free to experiment with innovative green technologies, and new ways to finance their projects, like congestion pricing and smart tolls.\r\nBut the point is that all states and localities should finally have the flexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want, for less money, without politicians and special interests from other parts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they should build.\r\nFor the country as a whole, our plan would mean a better infrastructure system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism, and innovative environmental protection. And for working families, it could mean more access to quality, affordable homes, less time on the road \u2013 and making it home in time for dinner with the kids.\r\nAnd finally, there is perhaps no barrier to middle-class security and opportunity more frustrating than those surrounding higher education. While it\u2019s true that college has never been for everyone, as we transition from an industrial economy to an information and service-based economy, post-secondary education cannot be a luxury available only to a select few.\r\nSome combination of higher education and vocational training should at least be an option for just about everyone who graduates from high school. Yet today, the federal government restricts access to higher education and inflates its cost, inuring unfairly to the advantage of special interests at the expense of students, teachers, and taxpayers.\r\nThe federal government does this though its control over college accreditation. \u00a0Because eligibility for federal student loans is tied to the federal accreditation regime, we shut out students who want to learn, teachers who want to teach, transformative technologies, and cost-saving innovations.\r\nAnd so, in the coming days, I will be introducing the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. Under this legislation, the existing accreditation system would remain unchanged. Current colleges and universities could continue to use the system they know.\r\nBut my plan would give states a new option to enter into agreements with the Department of Education to create their own, alternative accreditation systems to open up new options for students qualifying for federal aid.\r\nToday, only degree-issuing academic institutions are even allowed to be accredited. Under the new, optional state systems that my bill would authorize, accreditation could also be available to specialized programs, individual courses, apprenticeships, professional credentialing, and even competency-based tests. States could accredit online courses, or hybrid models with elements on- and off-campus.\u00a0\r\nThese systems would open up opportunities for non-traditional students \u2013 like single parents working double shifts \u2013 whose life responsibilities might make it impossible to take more than one class at a time. They would also enable traditional students to tailor a degree that better reflects the knowledge and skills valued by employers. Innovations in vocational education and training would open new opportunities in growing fields that are hiring right now.\r\nQualified unions, businesses, and trade groups could start to accredit courses and programs tailored to their evolving needs. Churches and charities could enlist qualified volunteers to offer accredited classes and training for next to nothing. States could use innovative systems to attract new opportunities and businesses, investing in their own future by investing in the human capital of their citizens.\r\nImagine having access to credit and student aid and for a program in computer science accredited by Apple or in music accredited by the New York Philharmonic; college-level history classes on-site at Mount Vernon or Gettysburg; medical-technician training developed by the Mayo Clinic; taking massive, open, online courses offered by the best teachers in the world from your living room or the public library.\r\nBrick-and-ivy institutions will always be the backbone of our higher-education system, but they shouldn\u2019t be the only option. If these new models were to succeed, they would create a virtuous cycle. Traditional colleges would be impelled to cut waste, refocus on their students, and embrace innovation and experimentation as part of their campus cultures.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThis reform could allow a student to completely customize her transcript \u2013 and \u201ccollege\u201d experience \u2013 while allowing federal aid to follow her through all of these different options. Students could mix and match courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus credits a la carte, pursuing their degree or certification at their own pace while bringing down costs to themselves, their families, and the taxpayers. \u00a0This is what conservative reform should be trying to create: an open, affordable, innovative higher education system to better serve and secure all Americans in a global information economy.\u00a0\r\nTaken together, some more take-home pay, more time with the kids, a shorter commute, and more access to college won\u2019t necessarily revolutionize our society, or cause the oceans to recede, or make everyone rich.\r\nWhat they \u2013 and other conservative reforms \u2013 could and should do is make our economy a little stronger, our society a little fairer, and life a little better for America\u2019s moms, and dads, and children.\r\nAnd that\u2019s a mandate for leadership in any generation.\r\nThere is obviously much more to be done. But the point I\u2019ve tried to make \u2013 and the lesson I hope we take \u2013 is that the Republican Party, at its best, is a Party of Ideas. It is ideas that unite and inspire conservatives. The leaders of Reagan\u2019s generation understood that. And we must, too.\r\nEspecially in the wake of recent controversies, many conservatives are more frustrated with the establishment than ever before. And we have every reason to be. \u00a0But however justified, frustration is not a platform. Anger is not an agenda. And outrage, as a habit, is not even conservative. Outrage, resentment, and intolerance are gargoyles of the Left. For us, optimism is not just a message \u2013 it\u2019s a principle. American conservatism, at its core, is about gratitude, and cooperation, and trust, and above all hope.\r\nIt is also about inclusion. Successful political movements are about identifying converts, not heretics. This, too, is part of the challenge before us.\r\nIn his 1977 CPAC speech effectively kicking off that era\u2019s great conservative debate, Ronald Reagan said:\r\n\u201cIf we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.\u201d\r\nDo we have the same spirit of charity and confidence in our ideas today? If we do not, this moment and opportunity will pass us by. We will lose, and we will deserve to lose.\r\nAnd rest assured, in that unfortunate event, it will not be the indifferent Republican establishment that profits from our failure. It will be a parade of progressives who will continue to lead our country, unabated, further away from our hopes, and our values, and our ability to do anything about it.\r\nIf our generation of conservatives wants to enjoy our own defining triumph, our own 1980 \u2013 we are going to have to deserve it. That means sharpening more pencils than knives. The kind of work it will require is neither glamorous nor fun \u2013 and sometimes it isn\u2019t even noticed. But it is necessary.\u00a0\r\nTo deserve victory, conservatives have to do more than pick a fight. We have to win a debate. And to do that, we need more than just guts. We need an agenda.\u00a0\r\nOur generation of conservatives has big shoes to fill, and a lot of lost time to make up. So, let\u2019s get to work.\r\nThank you very much.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 464, "expanded_columns": [], "expandable_columns": [], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "units": {}, "query": {"sql": "select url, title, date, year, month, party, chamber, state, member_name, bioguide_id, domain, scraper, source, date_source, text, has_text, collected_at, updated_at from releases where \"party\" = :p0 and \"state\" = :p1 and \"year\" = :p2 order by date desc limit 101", "params": {"p0": "Republican", "p1": "UT", "p2": "2013"}}, "facet_results": {"party": {"name": "party", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "Republican", "label": "Republican", "count": 464, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?state=UT&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "chamber": {"name": "chamber", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "House", "label": "House", "count": 464, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013&chamber=House", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "state": {"name": "state", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "UT", "label": "UT", "count": 464, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&year=2013", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "year": {"name": "year", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013", "results": [{"value": "2013", "label": "2013", "count": 464, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [], "next": "2013-10-29,https~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Elee~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fpublic~2Findex~2Ecfm~2Fspeeches~3FContentRecord_id~3Da752e38d-3589-4320-811f-2187636b377c", "next_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2013&_next=2013-10-29%2Chttps~3A~2F~2Fwww~2Elee~2Esenate~2Egov~2Fpublic~2Findex~2Ecfm~2Fspeeches~3FContentRecord_id~3Da752e38d-3589-4320-811f-2187636b377c&_sort_desc=date", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 107.86346346139908, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}