{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "is_view": false, "human_description_en": "where party = \"Republican\", state = \"UT\" and year = 2017 sorted by date descending", "rows": [["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=F44DB8C2-04DA-45B7-B41E-A14B9EA69740", "Hatch's Top 10 of 2017", "2017-12-31", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "As the year comes to a close, take a look at the top 10 things Senator Hatch did in 2017.\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n10. Senator Hatch's teen suicide prevention bill advanced:\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n9. Senator Hatch's RAPID DNA bill was signed into law:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n8. Senator Hatch introduced a bill to help teachers pay off their student loan debt, so that the best teachers in our Utah schools can afford to stay there:\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n7. Senator Hatch showed where he stands on white supremacy in Charlottesville:\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n6. Senator Hatch convened a high-level meeting on human trafficking with Ivanka Trump, Operation Underground Railroads Tim Ballard, and a number of his Senate colleagues:\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5. We came a step closer to extending Senator Hatch's Childrens Health Insurance Program for another five years. The Senate is likely to pass it in early January:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n4. Senator Hatch introduced a bill to make it easier to study the benefits of medical marijuana as a safe, non-addictive alternative to opioids:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The President accepted Senator Hatch's invitation to come to Utah to strike a compromise on our national monuments:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2. We confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court:\r\n\r\n\r\n1.We delivered on a key promise by passing tax reform that will benefit the vast majority of working families in Utah:", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=9EED7596-925F-4FF6-93B0-A9CEFFE29A19", "They See You When You Travel", "2017-12-27", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Its a Christmas motif almost as ubiquitous as Christmas trees or sleigh bells  families and individuals hastily making their way through airports, balancing presents, bags, and children, excited to make their way home to spend Christmas with their loved ones. Theyre concerned with their flight status, the weather in their destination, their luggage making it to the destination, or the likelihood they will get selected for a random TSA pat-down and any other number of travel-related factors. But in 2018, there may be another worry to add to that already long list of travel woes. At some point next year, the Department Homeland Security (DHS) is hoping to implement mandatory facial scans for all people  American citizens included  who are flying internationally. In fact, theyve already rolled out this invasive practice in a handful of airports this holiday season. This new invasion of Americans' privacy caught the attention of Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), whos own Logan International Airport was one of the airports selected for the rollout. We wrote a letter together to get more information from DHS about this program. There are a number of issues with this program, including that DHS hasnt instituted a way to let travelers know that they will be subjected to this scan before they fly. But more importantly there is no evidence to show that this facial scan actually works. DHS is hoping to use this technology accurately 96% of the time. But even at that rate 1 of 25 travelers would still be misidentified and improperly flagged by DHS. Additional evidence shows gender and ethnicity increase the likelihood of being improperly flagged. But perhaps the biggest concern is how the government will use this accumulated data and whether or not DHS is even allowed to collect it in the first place. As of now, the information is supposedly only shared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to check for fraud, and then deleted from the DHS database after 14 days. But in our examination of the program, we have not seen satisfactory safeguards that protect this information from being accessed by third party groups or that show these protocols are actually being followed. The Department of Homeland Security is ushering in this program in an attempt to fulfill a Congressional mandate that says a biometric exit program needs to be in place for international travelers. However, they have gone beyond this directive as the mandate passed by Congress did not allow for facial scans to be used on American citizens. For DHS to do this stands in direct conflict with the Constitution and its 4th Amendment protection of privacy. Until the Department of Homeland Security is willing to address these problems and provide myself, Senator Markey, and Congress sufficient evidence to prove the program falls within the constraints of its Congressional mandate, DHS should provide American citizens with a timely Christmas present  protecting their rights by not only stopping this programs expansion, but stopping its use entirely.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=E7B3A774-37DA-409A-86CC-594E23BBF40F", "A Tax Cut for Working Families", "2017-12-27", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The tax cut bill just passed by Congress and signed into law by the president is not perfect. But I voted for it because it will help working families and small businesses, give almost all Americans an immediate pay raise, and create millions of new jobs. But you dont have to take my word for it. In fact, as citizens, you shouldnt take any politicians word for it. And happily, you wont have to. As in any political debate, there has been a lot of overheated speculation about this bill. Some Republicans who opposed my work with Sen. Marco Rubio to change the bill to provide more tax relief directly to working and middle class said that would destroy the bill and crush its chances to spur economic growth. The argument was silly. But so are many of the criticisms of the bill coming from the left. Some Democrats say the bill will only cut taxes for businesses, not individuals. Thats false. The centrist Brookings Institute says the bill will reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018 by an average of $1,600. Some congressional Democrats argued this tax rate reduction plan was the worst bill in American history, apparently forgetting about the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Alien and Sedition Acts. These criticisms are nuts. In total, the bill is estimated to cut some federal taxes by a total of $6.5 trillion over the next ten years, and raise others by $4 trillion over the same period, coming out to a $1.5 trillion tax cut. I am not thrilled about the potential hit to the deficit. But I also believe we cannot tax our way to a balanced budget. The only way to close the deficit is with economic growth and spending discipline. With new jobs, higher wages, and more investment, the larger overall economic pie will give a bigger slice both to American workers and to their government. Over the last two decades, the United States 35 percent corporate tax rate has cost us trillions of dollars in aggregate international investment. The new 20 percent rate in this bill will help bring more of the global economy to our shores, instead of having us send so much of ours overseas. And of course the doubling of the standard deduction and child credit will deliver immediate, substantial tax relief to middle income families. And the good news is, in a few weeks we will be able to ignore the political speculation and rhetoric and just see for ourselves. Now that the bill is law, the IRS will begin to implement the new rules, and paycheck withholding guidelines will change. In another few pay periods, you either will or wont see a raise in your take-home pay. Over the course of the next year, two years, three years, we either will or wont see more Help Wanted signs in business windows. We will or wont see more listings on job-search websites. We will or wont hear about this or that business expanding, opening a new branch or a new plant. The new, $2,000 per-child tax credit  which Sen. Rubio and I successfully fought to make available to millions of additional working families  wont make raising kids easy. But it will make things like diapers, braces, little league, or piano lessons more affordable again. I voted for this tax bill because I believe it will deliver higher take-home pay, more relief for middle class families, and business tax reform to spur hiring, wage growth, and investment. Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against the bill because they thought it would not do those things. In a few weeks, well start to see  in your paychecks, at your office, in your community  who was right.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C32968C8-362E-477E-B3D6-AB27FFF5C2B7", "Sens. Markey and Lee Query Dept. of Homeland Security on Expansion of Facial Recognition Scanning Programs at U.S. Airports", "2017-12-21", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington  Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Mike Lee (R-UT), members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, today called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to answer important questions about its biometric exit program, which is currently operating at nine U.S. international airports. Currently, DHS requires travelers, including U.S. citizens, departing on select international flights to submit to a face scan so that their faces can be compared to a DHS biometric database for identity verification purposes. In their letter, Senator Markey and Lee query DHS about the accuracy, efficacy and transparency of the program. The senators highlight that under DHSs true accept rate goal, there would still be a false denial for one in 25 travelers. That means thousands of travelers could be wrongfully denied boarding each day.\r\nWe are concerned that the use of the program on U.S. citizens remains facially unauthorized,write Senators Markey and Lee to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson.We request that DHS stop the expansion of this program and provide Congress with its explicit statutory authority to use and expand a biometric exit program on U.S. citizens.\r\nA copy of the letter can be foundHERE.\r\nSpecifically, the Senators request more information from DHS on accuracy concerns and potential flaws in the scanning technology, how the program will not unduly burden travelers, including certain races or gender, how the program is improving visa overstay travel fraud, and the authority of DHS to expand the program when Congress has intentionally not authorized biometric exit scanning for U.S. citizens.\r\nToday, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law Center issued a report that revealed that while Congress has on nine separate occasions called on DHS to establish a biometric exit program to verify the identities of foreign nationals as they leave the country, Congress has not authorized face scans of American citizens. DHS also has not established rules governing the program. DHS also does not know whether it wrongly rejects people at higher rates as a result of their race or gender.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=56249602-E58A-4697-AB3A-33BFC5FB1536", "Sen. Lee Statement on Final Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", "2017-12-20", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement today after final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.\r\nAmerican working families deserve a tax cut and this bill delivers it to them, Sen. Lee said. According to the left of center Tax Policy Center, this bill will reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018 by an average of $1,600. And according to The Washington Post, a Utah family with two kids making the median $62,000 a year would see a $1,675 tax cut. Delivering more take home pay for these working Utahn families is why I voted for this bill.\r\nNow there is still a lot to be done. First and foremost we need to work with Democrats to make these middle-class tax cuts permanent. Second, we can do even more for lower-income working families by making the expanded Child Tax Credit in this bill fully refundable up to payroll tax liability.\r\nI stand ready to work with anybody to make sure working American families are treated fairly by our tax code.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=755", "Rep. Love Votes for Final Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", "2017-12-19", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. -- Rep. Mia Love voted with the majority in the House of Representatives for final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by approving theConference report to accompany H.R. 1. After passage of the Conference Report, Congresswoman Love issued the following statement:\r\n\r\n\tThis is a historic moment for Utahns and for the American people. The House of Representatives approved H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first update to our tax code in 31 years. The unified tax plan addresses three of my priorities: More jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks. We did this while keeping important deductions for state and local income taxes and property taxes, expanding the child tax credit, and maintaining home mortgage and student loan interest deductions. This bill will also grow both the Utah and U.S. economy to make our businesses more competitive. Utahns will see higher wages, lower taxes, a simpler system and a stronger economy under this plan, and Im proud to support it. \r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-final-passage-tax-cut-and-jobs-act", "Bishop Votes for Final Passage of Tax Cut and Jobs Act", "2017-12-19", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "robbishop.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  The US House of Representatives has voted for final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by approving the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1. Following passage of the Conference Report, Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:\nPassage of this bill will mean great savings for Americas middle class families. The expansion of the child tax credit is in line with Utah values and American Ideals. Additionally, this bill will encourage wage growth and job creation in the Beehive State, and the tax system in America is now on its way to becoming more fair and simple. \nTodays vote is not the end of a story, but rather the beginning of great efforts in the House to continue simplifying the American tax code.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/tax-reform-conference-report-passes-house", "Tax Reform Conference Report Passes House", "2017-12-19", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement after voting in favor of the House-Senate conference committee report to accompany the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:\nToday, we made history by passing the largest overhaul of tax reform since 1986. The new tax code is simple, fair, and focused on helping the American people by creating more jobs and bigger paychecks. It will change lives, energize our country, and get our economy thriving again.\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=754", "Rep. Love Pushes to Advance Sexual Harassment Bill", "2017-12-18", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. -- As momentum builds to take action on sexual harassment on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Mia Love's STOP Act now includes protection for victims.\r\n\r\n\tThe Stop Taxpayer Obligation for Perpetrators Act would stop the practice of making payments, funded with taxpayer dollars, to settle these cases on behalf of members of Congress. A new bill would also allow for compensation for victims of sexual harassment, but ensures that compensation is not made with taxpayer money.\r\n\r\n\t\"Taxpayers should not be paying to settle theses case, just because the accused happens to be a member of Congress,\" Rep. Love said. \"If someone behaves badly, the consequences to those actions are that person's responsibility and no one else's.\"\r\n\r\n\tThanks to Rep. Love's work, the updated STOP Act is currently a priority in the House of Representatives.\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7A8A63B0-09FD-45B0-9489-4610D9F9233A", "DEA Contradicts One-Sided Washington Post Report . . . About the DEA", "2017-12-16", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "This weekend the Washington Post released a follow-up to its investigation in October about legislation related to DEAs enforcement authority and the opioid crisis. In that original report, the Washington Post alleged that PhRMAthe drug manufacturing industrys lobbying armused campaign donations to press members of Congress to pass legislation that gutted DEAs ability to fight the opioid epidemic. Not only was the claim that PhRMA pushed for the bill entirely false, but as Senator Hatch, one of the bill sponsors, later made clear, the specific language in the bill that the Washington Post alleged was so problematic was written and provided to Congress by DEA and DOJ attorneys.\r\nThis week the Senate held an oversight hearing on bill, known as the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, and members had an opportunity to ask Demetra Ashley, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Diversion Control at DEA, about the bills impact. Ms. Ashley stated categorically that the legislation has not impeded DEAs ability to do its job and that the legislation has not caused a decline in DEAs enforcement efforts.\r\nAfter the hearing, the Washington Post reported the exact opposite of what DEA said.\r\nIn a follow-up piece after the hearing, the Washington Post reported: The measure curbed the DEAs powers to use its most potent weapons against drug companies that do not report suspicious orders of prescription painkillers from pharmacies.\r\nHowever, in the hearing itself, Ms. Ashley said the exact opposite:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\nHatch: Is there any conceivable way that the Act could have caused the decline in ISOs?\r\n\nAshley: Senator, this is a tool [immediate suspension orders] that DEA has historically used sparingly. Again, we move forward with where the evidence takes us. Now theyve been used sparingly, but theyve also been used for the most partpredominantly for physicians and also for pharmacies. Its a difficult challenge to connect a distributor and immediate...\r\n\nHatch: Maam, I was asking for a yes or no answer.\r\n\nAshley: Has it changed? Has it impacted our ability to doto issue ISOs? No, sir, it has not.\r\nNote that In addition to testifying that the legislation has not impacted DEAs ability to issue ISOs, Ms. Ashley emphasized that DEA has used ISOs sparingly. This stands in stark contrast to the Washington Posts description of ISOs as DEAs most potent tools in the war against the opioid epidemic. Ms. Ashely further clarified that ISOs are used primarily against physicians and pharmacies, not distributors, which have been a particular focus of the Washington Posts criticisms of the bill.\r\nMs. Ashley repeated several times to other Senators at the hearing that the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act has not hamstrung or stopped DEA, and told yet another Senator that the Act has not led DEA to issue fewer ISOs:\r\n \r\nSenator Durbin:Ms. Ashley tells Senator Durbin that theActhas not hamstrung DEAs efforts https://youtu.be/n4I_BpN4wYw\n\r\nSenator Grassley:In an exchange with Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, Ms. Ashley testifies that theActhas not stopped DEA from doing its job.https://youtu.be/NkkNDmjWeeE\n\r\nSenator Klobuchar: In a discussion with Senator Klobuchar, Ms. Ashley says DEA would not have issued more ISOs had the Act not been passed. Ms. Ashley also notes the array of other enforcement tools at DEAs disposal, tools the Washington Post has largely ignored in its reporting. https://youtu.be/u14fyGJEL7I; https://youtu.be/b06sJsCfTY0\n\r\n \r\nThe Washington Posts story relies on disgruntled former DEA employees, some of whom are now working as consultants to trial lawyers suing the drug industry and thus have an obvious conflict of interest in pushing the Posts narrative. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Post has chosen not to highlight this fact.\r\nAs Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley pointed out in his opening statement at the hearing, The DEA agent who was the centerpiece of the news article is a consultant for trial lawyers who are suing the industry. So his objectivity could be questioned. The sensational news stories failed to question this conflict of interest.\r\nVarious individuals have also raised questions concerning the DEA agents conduct while at DEA. The Washington Post has portrayed the agent as a martyr who was pushed out under agency pressure. These individuals accounts suggest the story may be more complicated:\r\n \r\nLetter from VCU medical professor to the Judiciary Committee describing troubling conduct by officials acting under the DEA agents leadership . [LINK]\r\nStatement by Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, describing an apparent cavalier attitude toward agency legal requirements [LINK]\r\nLetter from 31 patient advocacy groups describing an apparent lack of concern for patient needs [LINK]\r\n \r\nDEAs testimony at the hearing also made clear that DEA and DOJ both supported the final version of the legislation, a fact the Washington Post has sought to downplay (or even ignore) because it sharply undermines the Posts preferred narrative.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\nCruz: I just want to understand. So, the Department of Justice supported the legislation in the version that actually passed, is that correct?\r\n\nAshley: Yes, sir.\r\n\nCruz: And the DEA supported the legislation in the version that actually passed?\r\n\nAshley: Yes, sir.\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\nWhitehouse: We reached an agreement that DEA signed off on, that was approved by the Administrator, that was approved by the Attorney General of the United States, and on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States was signed into law by the President of the United States.\r\nAt the hearing, Senator Kennedy asked Ms. Ashley an obvious question that the Washington Post, which has claimed that DEA was violently opposed to the bill and agreed to it only under pressure, has never been able adequately to answer:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nKennedy: If everybody was so opposed to it at DEA, why werent they raising all manner of hell?\r\nThe obvious answer is that DEA wasnt opposed to the bill. To the contrary, as DEAs testimony made clear, DEA supported the final language that ultimately became law.\r\nDEA has a legal obligation to provide an analysis of the bill and what recommendations, if any, DEA has for changing the bill. It has not done so.\r\nDisgruntled former DEA employees can complain all they want about how the bill should be changed, but current DEA officials are required to submit recommendations about the bill to Congress and they have not done so.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nWhitehouse: The executive branch, in the form of HHS, which is to be advised by you all at DEA, is under a legal obligation to do an analysis of what changes are needed in this bill and has refused to do so, despite being required to by law. And we have the testimony now of your agency that you have no proposal, despite a recommendation that there be a change.\r\nCongress cannot make an informed decision about calls to amend or repeal the bill until DEA fulfills its legal obligation to submit recommendations to Congress. The Washington Post obviously wants to see a particular outcome here. The papers decision to downplay or ignore facts and testimony that undermine its preferred narrative make that much clear. But as Chairman Grassley said in his opening statement at the hearing, We shouldnt be repealing laws just because of the loudest person in the room, and solely based on one persons say-so.\r\nEven MORE background\r\n \r\nSenator Hatch has previously addressed flaws in the reports about this legislation on the Senate floor. [VIDEO]\r\nNumerous media outlets have likewise pointed out a number of omissions in the reporting on the bill.[LINK]\r\nPatient groups have also written in to express support for the legislation.[LINK] [LINK]\r\nIn addition, a VCU medical professor has described some of the problems at DEA in the years leading up to the bill\r\nHatch wrote an op-ed in theWashington Postcorrecting a number of errors in reports about the bill and its impact on DEAs enforcement capabilities.[LINK]\r\nRepresentative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, submitted a statement at the hearing explaining the need for the bill. [LINK]", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=3918BB3F-E799-482E-9204-DCD98C17AFCF", "The Rise in Unwed Childbearing", "2017-12-15", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Too often, legislators pass bills that seem to be solutions in search of problems. But those problems are rarely as straightforward as they appear to be. This is why my staff at the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) have worked so tirelessly on the Social Capital Project  a multi-year research initiative that explores the evolving nature and importance of our associational life, specifically why the health of those associational relationships seems so compromised. And of all the relationships people have in their lives, the most important and formative is the one children have with their parents. This relationship is the foundation of a healthy associational life, which is why the JECs most recent study focused on parent/child relationships and how theyve changed in the last few generations. As many of you already know, there has been a significant uptick in children born to unwed parents since 1960. And numerous studies show children of stable, married couples outperform children born to single parents, especially when it comes to laying the foundation for engagement in associational life. This isnt to say a child born to single mother or father will necessarily face more challenges in life, or that a child born to a married mother and father will automatically succeed. But there is a statistically significant pattern that shows having two stable parents in a committed relationship does give a child a leg up. Yet, in the past few decades, weve shifted from this two-parent model of child-bearing. In 1960, just 5.3% of children were born to single mothers. As of 2008, that number jumped to 40%, and that number is even higher for children born to mothers who are under 30. This means 35% more of the children born today are born into a situation that disadvantages them. While it would be simple to point to increased sexual activity as the obvious cause, our research found two even larger factors: 1) there are fewer married women, and 2) the cultural norm often referred to as the shotgun marriage has all but disappeared. The causes for these two trends are also very complicated, but they appear to be a result of an increase in affluence and opportunity in society as a whole. Rising affluence and opportunity is absolutely something we should celebrate, but that doesnt negate the fact that the uptick in non-married births is something that should be addressed. Problems are rarely as straightforward as they appear to be. I am proud of the work my staff on the JEC is doing to shine a light on the complexities of this issue, and we will continue to pursue this line of inquiry to ensure all children are born with the leg up they deserve.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=8A6C64E3-4E21-47AC-949F-BA0B7A4F79A8", "We need a HERO: Our plan to fix higher education", "2017-12-15", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The dawn of the 21st century has brought tremendous opportunities and changes to our economy. One consequence is that everyone needs some kind of education after high school. Yet only four in ten Americans achieve an associates degree or higher.\r\nIts a new game, and its essential that all citizens can still pursue their American dreams. We need a higher education system that works better for more Americans and their families.\r\nWe can begin this process by focusing on four key reform principles: affordability, transparency, accountability, and innovation. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act, introduced in the Senate this past week.\r\nWith respect to affordability, between 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439 percent, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. And costs have only continued to rise in the past decade.\r\nThe typical solution to the unaffordability problem has been to increase the amount and types of loans that students can access, but this solution has actually contributed to the exponential rise in tuition rates.\r\nIn 2015, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a study that found a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar. This means that for every additional dollar the federal government allows students to borrow, colleges and universities increase their tuition by 60 cents, thus increasing the number of students who need loans to afford college in the first place.\r\nThe HERO Act would address the affordability issue by streamlining the current duplicative menu of student loan programs into one option and creating one repayment period for undergraduate loans and another for graduate loans. Additionally, the act would establish caps on loan amounts, to keep university rate increases in check and lower the amount of debt students need to repay once they graduate from college.\r\nHERO's second aim is to improve transparency in higher education. When it comes to choosing a good college and major, parents and students are often left to make these life-changing decisions in the dark.\r\nThe HERO Act would ensure that parents and students have access to information about how effective their college of choice is in helping students graduate on time; how burdened by debt students are after obtaining their degrees; and how successful graduates in a particular major are at obtaining jobs that enable them to pay back their loans.\r\nNext comes accountability. Nearly half of borrowers today are not making payments on their student loans. This alarming statistic is one of the reasons some economists have predicted that student loans are the next financial bubble. It is time for a change.\r\nOne promising solution is to make sure that all parties in higher education have skin in the game. The HERO Act would ensure that colleges have a financial stake in their programs by requiring schools with poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fine. The possibility of a penalty would motivate schools to invest in the success of their students.\r\nFinally, HERO aims to encourage innovation. Todays post-secondary students come from a range of different backgrounds, from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mom going back to school, to the laid-off worker who needs to retrain mid-career. Meeting the needs of this diverse population means we need a lot more options than we did when current federal policies were first written decades ago.\r\nThe HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation.\r\nTodays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare them for the challenges and opportunities of todays job market. The HERO Act is an important first step toward building that new system. It would open the door to the American Dream for the millions of Americans who are pursuing it.\r\nOp-ed originally published in the Washington Examiner", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=FFB4B299-DE05-486B-8060-AD99989258B5", "Mike Lee, Mia Love: It's time to modernize higher education", "2017-12-15", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "From our states earliest days, Utah has placed a high value on education. It is part of our cultural DNA. So its not totally surprising that when it comes to higher education, Utah is getting a lot of things right.\r\nFor example, Utahs tuition rates are the fourth lowest in the nation. Our state has the lowest average student debt. And it enjoys an impressive network of private and public universities, technical colleges and alternative education options. These positive data points directly contribute to Utahs status as the most upwardly mobile state in the union.\r\nHowever, troubling nationwide statistics continue to overshadow, and negatively influence, our positive statewide figures. Here are just a few of those numbers:\r\nBetween 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439 percent.  The average borrower now finishes college with $28,000 in debt.  70 percent of students now need to borrow to afford college.  25 percent of student loan borrowers are struggling to repay their debt or are in default.  Only 55 percent of students who start college finish with a degree.  Clearly, we can improve upon the status quo. Given rapidly changing economic dynamics, we must.  Utahs past success indicates we can lead the way in creating a more innovative system of higher education. This will require reforms that foster greater accountability, affordability, transparency and adaptability. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act, introduced recently in both the U.S. House and Senate.\r\nThe HERO Act recognizes that todays postsecondary students come from diverse backgrounds  from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mother, to the laid-off worker requiring mid-career training. It gives power to individual states to create alternative accreditation paths that will open doors to innovative new education options (i.e., massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, or certification exams) tailored to individual student needs. This will help students acquire the skills that employers need without necessarily having to finance a traditional four-year degree.\r\nAdditionally, the bill enhances transparency by providing students with data regarding their education options. Specifically, it would provide students with data reflecting how effective their school of choice is at helping students graduate on time, how significant the average graduates student loan debt is, and how successful graduates from each major are at obtaining a job that enables them to quickly pay back any student loan debt.\r\nFinally, the HERO Act improves accountability by requiring schools that have poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fee, thus incentivizing them to fully invest in the future success of their students.\r\nTodays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare these learners for the challenges and opportunities in todays job market. The HERO Act is a real Utah solution and an important first step toward building that system and by so doing creates a more open door to the American Dream and the millions of Americans who are pursuing it. Op-ed originally published in the Deseret News", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=AEEEACFF-C0B4-4C1E-B7BF-8392892B67FD", "Higher Education Needs a HERO", "2017-12-15", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The dawn of the 21st century has brought tremendous opportunities and changes to our economy. Everyone now needs some kind of education after high school. Yet, only four in ten Americans achieve an associates degree or higher.  Its a new game, and its essential that all citizens can still pursue their American dreams. We need a higher education system that works better for more Americans and their families. We can begin this process by focusing on four key reform principles: accountability, affordability, transparency, and innovation. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act introduced in the Senate this past week.  Affordability Between 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439%, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Educationand costs have only continued to rise in the past decade. The typical solution to the unaffordability problem has been to increase the amount and types of loans that students can access.  However, this solution has actually contributed to the exponential rise in tuition rates. In 2015, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a study that found a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar. This means that for every additional dollar the federal government allows students to borrow, colleges and universities increase their tuition by 60 cents, thus increasing the number of students who need loans to afford college in the first place.  The HERO Act would address the affordability issue by streamlining the current duplicative menu of student loan programs into one option and creating one repayment period for undergraduate loans and another for graduate loans. Additionally, the act would establish caps on loan amounts, which would help to keep university rate increases in check and lower the amount of debt students need to repay once they graduate from college.  Transparency Informed consumers are a critical component of a free-market economy. Yet when it comes to choosing a good college and major, parents and students are often left to make these life-changing decisions in the dark.  The HERO Act would ensure that parents and students have access to information about how effective their college of choice is in helping students graduate on time; how burdened by debt students are after obtaining their degrees; and how successful graduates in a particular major are at obtaining jobs that enable them to pay back their loans.  Accountability Nearly half of borrowers today are not making payments on their student loans. This alarming statistic is one of the reasons some economists have predicted that student loans are the next financial bubble. It is time for a change.  One promising solution is to make sure that all parties in higher education have skin in the game. The HERO Act would ensure that colleges have a financial stake in their programs by requiring schools with poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fine. The possibility of a penalty would motivate schools to invest in the success of their students.  Innovation Todays post-secondary students come from a range of different backgrounds, from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mom going back to school, to the laid-off worker who needs to retrain mid-career. Meeting the needs of this diverse population means we need a lot more options than we did when current federal policies were first written decades ago.  The HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation.  Todays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare them for the challenges and opportunities of todays job market. The HERO Act is an important first step toward building that new system. It would open the door to the American Dream for the millions of Americans who are pursuing it.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=751", "Statement on Net Neutrality", "2017-12-14", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\"A permanent solution to Net Neutrality needs to be decided by Congress.\u00a0 This game of regulatory ping pong should not be played with the Internet.\"\r\n\r\n\t\"That is why I have been working and will continue to work with the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, Greg Walden and his staff to find a legislative solution that will preventing blocking, throttling or unfair interconnection practices\".\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=FF93C505-AFA3-4DF1-95EF-6097A56BDD31", "Net Neutrality Regulation Floor Speech", "2017-12-14", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Mr. President,\r\nEarlier today the FCC voted to reverse a major impediment to a free and open Internet: The Title Two Internet regulations that were imposed under President Obama in 2015.\r\nThese regulations are commonly called \u201cNet Neutrality,\u201d so for the sake of convenience that is what I\u2019ll call them.\r\nI want to congratulate FCC Chairman Ajit Pai for this brave accomplishment. He has fought for what he knows is right in the face of tremendous pressure.\r\nI also want to use this opportunity to correct the record about what the FCC actually has accomplished.\r\nBecause there is an astonishing amount of misinformation and hyperbole surrounding this matter.\r\nIf you believe the passionate voices defending these regulations, then you may think the FCC just jeopardized the Internet that we all know and love\u2014and sometimes loathe.\r\nThese activists paint a scary vision of America without Net Neutrality.\r\n. . . A vision where large Internet Service Providers prey on ordinary consumers and startups.\r\n. . . Where Internet access would be rationed or bundled up in expensive packages.\r\n. . . One viral tweet even suggested that Google would start charging two bucks apiece for Internet searches!\r\nThese are falsehoods, and they will be exposed as such over the next few months, when the Internet hums along like usual and the skyscrapers in all our major cities remain standing.\r\nWe will look back on these dire predictions as hysterics, like Y2K or the Mayan Apocalypse of 2012.\r\nBut in the present, these exaggerations have real-world consequences besides scaring the public.\r\nIn the last six months, Chairman Pai and his family have been attacked in the grossest terms.\r\nEven his children have been singled out for intimidation.\r\nThese kinds of attacks have no place in our discourse.\r\nSo why don\u2019t we tone down the rhetoric and see if we can\u2019t get to the truth about Net Neutrality.\r\nWe can start with a little background.\r\nIn 2015, the Democrat-controlled FCC issued the so-called \u201cOpen Internet Order.\u201d\r\nThis order made dramatic changes to how the Internet was classified for purposes of regulation.\r\nUntil 2015, broadband Internet was classified as an \u201cinformation service.\u201d\r\nAs such, it was subject to \u201clight-touch\u201d regulations that allowed innovators to build without seeking permission from the government.\r\nThis classification was common sense and reflected the intent of Congress.\r\nThe Internet is a fast-moving information superhighway.\r\nIf slow-moving government regulators got involved decades ago, it could have inhibited innovation that keeps service fast and prices low for all Americans.\r\nNot only was this a common-sense arrangement, it facilitated a \u201cvirtual renaissance\u201d of innovation and discovery.\r\nThis renaissance gave us things like smartphones, ride-sharing, and super-fast fiber optic Internet. It gave us 3G . . . then 4G . . . and soon 5G wireless service!\r\nAnd yes, this period also gave us Twitter. So it wasn\u2019t all good.\r\nBut overall, the light-touch regulatory arrangement worked pretty well\u2014for ordinary users, big companies, and entrepreneurs just starting out in their garages.\r\nContrary to Net Neutrality\u2019s rabid defenders, the Internet of 2014 was not some sort of hellscape. It was actually pretty awesome.\r\nThe FCC threatened all that in 2015, when it reclassified broadband Internet as a \u201ctelecommunications service.\u201d\r\nThis innocuous-sounding change subjected the Internet to a host of regulations that were originally meant for New Deal-era telephone monopolies like Ma Bell.\r\nIn essence, the government imposed 1930s-style regulations on 21st-century technology.\r\nThis outdated arrangement has worked about as well as we would expect: Broadband Internet investment has fallen significantly since the Net Neutrality regulations were proposed in 2011.\r\nDr. George Ford of the Phoenix Center estimates that between 2011 and 2015, just the threat of regulation scared off $200 billion in investment.\r\nAnd since the regulations were imposed in 2015, broadband Internet investment has declined by 5.6% \u2014that\u2019s billions of lost dollars over just two years.\r\nAs Chairman Pai has noted, this is the first-ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession. And this recession just so happens to be self-imposed!\r\nIt may not seem like a big deal to you that government is squeezing out billions in Internet investment. But it hurts you and your fellow citizens in material ways.\r\nLess investment means less fiber-optic cable . . . fewer towers and Wi-Fi hotspots.\r\nAnd this translates into spottier coverage and slower speeds for Americans\u2014especially those living on the periphery of society, in poverty or in rural areas.\r\nFCC regulations make it harder for these Americans to have equal access to the Internet.\r\nThese regulations also have entrenched the market power of large Internet Service Providers while hurting their smaller competitors.\r\nBy their very nature, regulations impose conformity on a market. They limit companies\u2019 ability to distinguish themselves from their rivals by offering innovative services.\r\nThis works out fine for the companies at the top. They\u2019ve already made it. They can kick back without worrying about some young punk coming along and changing the game.\r\nIt works out less well for the young punks\u2014the startups that want to win customers away from old-school companies.\r\nThat\u2019s how it works in theory, at least. And there\u2019s good evidence that\u2019s what is happening in practice.\r\nSmall ISPs have been far more critical of Net Neutrality regulations than large ISPs.\r\nA group of two-dozen small Internet providers recently wrote that the regulations hang \u201clike a black cloud\u201d over their businesses, \u201cslowing\u201d or even halting their deployment of new technology.\r\nLikewise, 19 municipal Internet providers told the FCC that they \u201coften delay or hold off\u201d on introducing new services because they cannot afford a potential complaint.\r\nInternet providers that serve predominantly rural areas have voiced similar concerns, reporting that they have reduced network expansion in parts of the country that are already underserved.\r\nThese examples show that Net Neutrality regulations are harming competition and increasing the consolidation of power in the Internet industry, not decreasing it.\r\nInternet regulations have in effect sheltered large ISPs from competition and from the need to change. Be sure to think about that the next time you\u2019re on hold with customer support.\r\nAs Americans chart a path forward in the coming years, we will face an important choice: Do we want an Internet run by regulators, or an Internet run by innovators?\r\nThe innovators have a strong track record over the last thirty years, so I know who I\u2019m siding with.\r\nHow can we empower them? And more importantly, how can we empower the millions of families who rely on fast and reliable Internet service each and every day?\r\nThe FCC did its part today by repealing Net Neutrality and returning to the regulatory framework that governed the Internet successfully until 2015.\r\nThis move reclassifies the Internet as an information service, but it goes beyond that as well.\r\nThe FCC will require every ISP to disclose information about their network management practices.\r\nIf these companies block or throttle Web traffic, rest assured the public will know about it.\r\nAnd importantly, this order restores enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers from \u201cunfair or deceptive\u201d practices.\r\nThe FTC had policed the Internet successfully for years prior to 2015. Now the cop is back on the beat.\r\nThe FCC\u2019s action today is a return to normalcy for the Internet.\r\nBut we should not rest easy. A future administration could undo all Chairman Pai\u2019s hard work at a moment\u2019s notice, if Congress does not act to solidify his accomplishment.\r\nOver the summer, I introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibit the FCC from imposing utility-style regulations on the Internet ever again.\r\nPassing this act would give companies the regulatory certainty they need to invest in improvements for their customers.\r\nWe should not discount how important Congress can be in determining the success\u2014or failure\u2014of things like the Internet.\r\nIn 1996, President Clinton and Congress inaugurated the \u201clight-touch\u201d regulation of the Internet. They wanted the information superhighway to be \u201cunfettered by Federal or State regulations.\u201d\r\nThey were rewarded with a tremendous outpouring of innovation that has improved the lives of practically every American.\r\nI say we emulate their wise example, and see what free men and women can invent in the next twenty years.\r\nThank you.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=748", "Josh Holt Facing Trial, Health Declining & Denied Treatment", "2017-12-13", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C -- On December 12, 2017 a Venezuelan judge ordered Josh Holt to stand trial on trumped-up weapons charges.\u00a0 \u00a0 After 18 months and repeated procedural delays in his case, this latest development is evidence the case is being politiczed by President Nicolas Maduro's socialst government in an effort to retaliate against the U.S. economic sanctions.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tRep. Love says: \"I am outraged at the way Joshua Holt has been treated in Venezuela the entire time since his arrest.\u00a0 He has been denied due process and proper justice.\u00a0 His health has declined, and he's been denied proper medical treatment.\u00a0 I demand Joshua Holt be released immediately, and I will continue to fight to make that happen.\u00a0 This has been devastating time for the Holt family, and my heart goes out to them.\"\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=93E1BB22-AD80-41AE-9929-43F5F32137C3", "Hatch Praises Nominee for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Role", "2017-12-13", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)\u2014a member and former Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and a longtime champion for Americans with disabilities\u2014issued the following statement in support of Johnny Collett, the President\u2019s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the Department of Education. The HELP Committee advanced Mr. Collett\u2019s nomination earlier this evening:\r\nMr. Collett is a superbly qualified nominee with over 15 years of experience supporting students with disabilities. His track record speaks for itself, and I\u2019m confident that his years of experience as a special education teacher, as a State Director of Special Education, and as the Director of Special Education Outcomes at the Council of Chief State School Officers makes him uniquely qualified to lead this office. As Assistant Secretary, he will continue supporting the needs of students with disabilities. This is a critically important position, and having a strong, qualified nominee to serve in this role is vital to ensure that all students have the opportunity to reach their full academic potential.\r\n\r\n\r\nThroughout my term of service, I have championed an even playing field in education for students with disabilities. I was an author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and just this year, I co-authored the Respond, Innovate, Support, and Empower Students with Disabilities Act. I also sponsored the Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education Act to ensure proper accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education. Johnny Collett has my full confidence, and I look forward to supporting his nomination when it moves to the Senate floor for a vote.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=4C1434C4-1BB6-435F-AD5B-B2A58703FD13", "In Judiciary Hearing, Bipartisan Senators Set Record Straight on DEA/Opioid Legislation", "2017-12-12", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, DC\u2014This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to review the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act\u2014a bill that was passed in the previous Congress to clarify the Drug Enforcement Administration\u2019s enforcement authority with regard to the medicine supply chain.\r\nThe legislation, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), addressed a flaw in the system that gave the Drug Enforcement Administration\u2019s (DEA\u2019s) Office of Diversion Control undefined authority cut off prescription supply chains without warning, thereby threatening access to lifesaving treatment.\u00a0The benefits of this proposal were almost entirely overlooked in a one-sided Washington Post report that misrepresented the law\u2019s intent and the process by which it was passed. The same report additionally downplayed the overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, which passed Congress with unanimous support and was signed by President Obama on the advice of his own DEA.\r\nIn setting the record straight, Hatch noted that the very phrase that the news report claims \u201cgutted DEA\u2019s enforcement authority\u201d actually came from agency lawyers. At today\u2019s hearing, Hatch and other members of the panel had the opportunity to ask Demetra Ashley\u2014the Acting Assistant Administrator for Diversion Control at DEA\u2014about the bill\u2019s impact and to rebut claims that the bill has impeded DEA\u2019s ability to do its job. Senator Hatch also took the opportunity to explain the pressing need for the legislation, a key point that has been lost in the one-sided reporting on the bill.\r\n\r\nSenators Hatch and Whitehouse Set the Record Straight on their Legislation Clarifying DEA Rules\r\nIn subsequent questions with Senators Hatch and Whitehouse, Acting Assistant Administrator Ashley made clear that Senator Hatch and Senator Whitehouse\u2019s legislation had not caused a decline in DEA enforcement efforts. [VIDEO] Click here for copies of the two charts Senator Hatch referenced in his questions. [LINK]\r\n \r\nSenator Hatch has previously addressed flaws in the reports about this legislation on the Senate floor. [VIDEO]\r\nNumerous media outlets have likewise pointed out a number of omissions in the reporting on the bill. [LINK]\r\nPatient groups have also written in to express support for the legislation. [LINK] [LINK]\r\nIn addition, a VCU medical professor has described some of the problems at DEA in the years leading up to the bill. [LINK]\r\nHatch wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post correcting a number of errors in reports about the bill and its impact on DEA\u2019s enforcement capabilities. [LINK]\r\nRepresentative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, submitted a statement at the hearing explaining the need for the bill. [LINK]\r\n \r\nSenator Hatch\u2019s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nThank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for allowing me to make a statement.\r\nToo often in this town, narrative gets ahead of facts. A newspaper prints an explosive headline, and it\u2019s off to the races. It doesn\u2019t matter what the actual facts are. The bandwagon starts rolling, and everyone wants on, or off, as the case may be.\r\nIndeed, Mr. Chairman, I was both surprised and disappointed by how quickly everyone seemed to start running from this bill the moment some negative news reports came out. From Senator McCaskill to Senator Manchin to Attorney General Sessions, it seems like everyone\u2019s trying to wash their hands of it. But no one ever told me they were dubious about this bill when it was going through. No one entered a statement of opposition into the record or offered an amendment to change the bill. To the contrary, the bill passed this committee by voice vote and passed the full Senate by unanimous consent.\r\nSo these last two months have been deeply frustrating to me, Mr. Chairman. I wish some of my colleagues would stop trying to rewrite history or pretend this was some sort of shell game.\r\nThat\u2019s why I\u2019m glad we\u2019re holding this hearing today. I want to talk about the facts. The facts of this law. The facts of my involvement and of this committee\u2019s involvement. And the facts of the law\u2019s impact.\r\nLet\u2019s start with the impetus for this law. This law came about, not because I or anyone else got some giant check, but because of very real concerns that the way DEA was operating was threatening patient access.\r\nRepresentative Marino has said that he became involved after meeting with a community pharmacist in his district who was \u201chaving so much trouble obtaining prescription opioids that he had to turn away legitimate patients.\u201d I heard similar concerns from constituents, one of whom will be testifying today.\r\nAnd it wasn\u2019t just Utah and Pennsylvania. Across the nation, pharmacies were facing supply chain problems. A January 2014 survey by the National Community Pharmacists Association found that 75 percent of respondents had experienced three or more problems with stopped shipments in the previous 18 months and that a majority had had to turn patients away as a result. News reports from Indiana to Florida detailed stories of legitimate patients who were having significant difficulty obtaining needed medication.\r\nNo doubt these supply chain problems had multiple causes, but DEA\u2019s activities were a contributing factor. According to a 2015 GAO report, the lack of clear guidance from DEA to distributors on what constitutes a suspicious order and what can trigger an enforcement action was leading many distributors to place quotas on drug shipments to pharmacies, a practice that the report found can \u201cnegatively impact . . . patients\u2019 access.\u201d The report detailed how fear of enforcement actions, coupled with lack of agency guidance, was leading distributors to decline to fill orders even in cases where a distributor had no evidence that a pharmacy or doctor was engaging in diversion.\r\nAnd it wasn\u2019t just lack of guidance. I\u2019ve had a number of individuals tell me that DEA\u2019s attitude toward registrants during this period was downright antagonistic. I have a letter here from a VCU Professor that describes some really troubling conduct by diversion control agents and that explains how difficult he found it to try to work with the agency in good faith.\r\nAnd it wasn\u2019t just the private sector that was having difficulty dealing with DEA, either. In a separate 2015 report about drug shortages, GAO described the great difficulty it had getting information from DEA\u2019s Office of Diversion Control. According to the report, completion of GAO\u2019s work \u201cwas delayed significantly because of DEA\u2019s refusal to comply with [GAO\u2019s] requests for information . . . for over a year.\u201d Only after the intervention of \u201csenior DOJ management officials\u201d was GAO able to obtain the data it was seeking.\r\nThe Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act was an effort to respond to these problems, to provide clearer guidance for supply chain members, and to encourage greater cooperation between DEA and the regulated community. That\u2019s why it defined the agency\u2019s immediate suspension order authority. That\u2019s why it provided for corrective action plans. This wasn\u2019t some effort to help drug companies kill people. Give me a break. This was an effort to ensure that DEA\u2019s praiseworthy efforts to stem abuse don\u2019t end up hurting legitimate patients.\r\nNow, I\u2019d like to say a word about how this law came together. I want to be clear right at the outset that this was not a pharma bill. Don\u2019t tell me I did this bill because pharma donated however much money to me.\r\nPrior to introduction, Senator Whitehouse and I negotiated with DEA, distributors, and patient advocacy groups. We may have talked to a pharma company at one point or another, but they were not key players.\r\nAnd you know what? The bill Senator Whitehouse and I introduced? DOJ was okay with it. They said so in writing to this committee.\r\nOf course, legislating is a process, and after introduction I found it was necessary to make changes in order to move the bill forward. I would have preferred not to, but we all know that legislation requires compromise. And so I had to accommodate some requests from industry stakeholders at the request of other members of this committee.\r\nI negotiated these changes with DEA and DOJ. In fact, DOJ gave me the substantial likelihood language that critics now seem so fixated on.\r\nAnd once DEA and I came to a point where we agreed on a path forward, I asked the Chairman to put the bill on a markup. And I kept my end of the bargain. I told other members what DEA had asked me to tell them, and I made the floor and record statements I\u2019d promised DEA I would make. I did all of this in good faith.\r\nI later came to find out that notwithstanding our agreement, DEA and DOJ were telling other offices they still had some concerns with the bill. For reasons I don\u2019t understand, they never shared these concerns directly with me. But evidently the concerns weren\u2019t that significant, as DEA didn\u2019t try to stop the bill. As all of us on this committee know, any bill can be stopped by agency opposition. All it takes is one hold.\r\nSo that\u2019s how we got here. This bill addressed a very real problem, and it did so in a carefully crafted, carefully negotiated way. If DEA has concerns with the bill, I\u2019m happy to hear them. But I\u2019d also ask DEA to explain why those concerns didn\u2019t cause it to stop the bill 18 months ago, before it became law.\r\nThank you, 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=A9903730-A29D-4BA4-AF08-700AC3B77C0F", "Volokh Conspiracy: Sen. Orrin Hatch on President Trumps appointments to the judiciary", "2017-12-11", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "By Eugene Volokh\r\n[LINK]\r\nThe office of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) passed along this item, which I thought would be very interesting for our readers, as it tells us something about how Republicans are continuing to argue about judicial appointments; naturally, if a Democratic senator wants to pass along something similar from the other side, I\u2019d love to publish it as well:\r\nIn Washington, it can sometimes be difficult to focus on what counts. Today\u2019s information environment is increasingly atomized and persistently polarized. Almost all will inevitably focus on who is up, and who is down, in the endless cycle of partisan gamesmanship. But none should forget that what matters, at the end of the day, is policy. And the first year of new Republican government has delivered plenty of that.\r\nHere in the Senate, despite fits and starts, we are moving the ball forward. Notwithstanding often vicious treatment by the media and the constant obstruction of the Democrats here in Congress, President Trump is managing his domestic policy agenda like a true leader does: he names his agenda, he picks his team, and he executes. The results speak for themselves.\r\nWe are closing in on a historic tax reform package, which itself includes an important first step on healthcare reform. Regulatory burdens are falling, as the administrative state faces its first substantial pushback in decades. From labor to environmental to fiscal and monetary policy, from education to justice issues, there\u2019s substantial progress on nearly every front. Only a year into the new administration, we are making good on the pledge for a historic change in Washington.\r\nBut, of course, there is perhaps no greater legacy that a President leaves behind than the judicial appointments he makes. President Trump\u2019s choices there will echo for generations. Further, there was perhaps no more distinguishing promise that then-candidate Trump made to the American people than the restoration of the judiciary. And thus, it is particularly gratifying to recognize that in no area have promises made more fully ripened into promises kept.\r\nNeil Gorsuch was a superb choice for the Supreme Court. At a historic juncture for our courts, he stands poised to seize the mantle left by Justice Antonin Scalia, and carry the cause of originalism and textualism forward for a new generation. But Justice Gorsuch was only the beginning. From the circuits courts to the district courts, judicial nominations, across the board, have been outstanding. The results will be felt for decades to come.\r\nFrom the outset, President Trump has brought to this process the same acumen and drive that made him so successful in business. First, he has clearly named his agenda: a judiciary recommitted to the impartial administration of justice and refocused on the rule of law. Second, he has wisely picked his team: White House Counsel Don McGahn and his staff have been, in a word, exceptional. And third, the President is executing flawlessly: as a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I can say confidently that we\u2019ve never seen such a high-quality stable of nominees, and nominated at such a rapid pace.\r\nAs is not much of a secret in Washington these days, Republicans tend to disagree among themselves quite a bit. Through the effort to deliver on our promises to the American people, there will be differences of opinion on the best policy means to reach shared policy goals. But one thing that continues to unify the Conference here in the Senate, and Republicans across the country, is the conviction that an independent, impartial judiciary is simply too important to lose. And that is why, whatever our differences on other issues, conservatives across the board heartily approve of the way this administration has handled judicial nominations. I\u2019ll continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Leader McConnell, to confirm these judges. As the rest of our agenda gains steam, judicial selection will remain the vanguard.\r\nThrough the 2016 campaign, the President promised to pull the best people onto his team, and to deliver real results for the American people. On judicial nominations, that\u2019s precisely what he is doing. By installing and empowering such a capable White House Counsel\u2019s office, he has signaled the seriousness with which he takes this effort. And by keeping up the pace of nominations, he has assured that this enormous opportunity for improvement in the judiciary will not go to waste. The product of the administration\u2019s efforts, and the good that can still be done, will carve a defining legacy of which we can all be proud.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=66E58B83-AF40-48E6-9929-B2C8EE0EAA1D", "Hatch, Laurie Holt call for Medical Attention for Josh in Venezuelan Prison", "2017-12-11", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) joined Laurie Holt, mother of imprisoned Utahn Joshua Holt in calling on the Maduro government to comply with court orders allowing Josh to receive medical attention following reports that he had fallen ill in his Venezuelan prison cell.\u00a0\r\n\r\nHatch, with Laurie and Jason Holt in July\r\n\u201cIt\u2019s beyond inhumane to deny a court order allowing Josh to receive the urgent medical care he needs,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cI call on the Maduro government to see that Josh is able to receive immediate medical attention as we continue to work towards his release on humanitarian grounds.\u201d\r\nJosh\u2019s mother Laurie Holt added, \u201cSadly today our son Josh Holt found himself again in a dire medical situation. They have disregarded the court order approving his transport to a Medical Facility to receive proper medical care, and the Prison's Directors under the instructions of high Government officials have continuously denied him the transfer to such a facility. Josh Holt is in a delicate state and therefore we ask again that Venezuela releases him under humanitarian grounds immediately. We also ask that our leaders in the US Government double their efforts in bringing him home before it is too late.\u201d\r\nSenator Hatch has been working with the Holt family, the Trump administration, and previously the Obama administration towards Josh\u2019s release from prison for over a year, and continues to work behind the scenes to return Josh to his family in Riverton.\r\nBackground:\r\n \r\nHatch\u00a0update\u00a0on Josh Holt\u2019s case\u20149/2016\r\nHatch\u00a0update\u00a0on working with John Kerry and Joe Biden on Josh\u2019s behalf\u20149/2016\r\nHatch\u00a0update\u00a0ahead of second schedule hearing in Venezuela \u2013 10/2016\u2014\u201cI will not stop until we have Josh back.\u201d\r\nHatch\u00a0update\u2014working with Venezuelan ambassador to the organization of American states after Judge failed to show up to another hearing for Josh \u2013 11/2016\r\nB-roll video\u00a0of Hatch meeting with Secretary of State Tillerson, discussing Josh\u2019s case\u20141/2017\r\nRelease: Hatch Presses Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson on Utahn Josh Holt, Key International Issues\r\nB-roll video\u2014Hatch meets with Laurie Holt in the Capitol ahead of her meeting with Undersecretary Shannon and President Trump\r\nRelease: Hatch Calls for Action Ahead of One-Year Mark of Joshua Holt\u2019s Captivity in Venezuela", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=89231002-211B-40A2-A669-F99B203BCA61", "Hatch Reacts to New York Attack, Offers Foreign Policy Recommendations", "2017-12-11", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, DC\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the terrorist attack in New York this morning. In doing so, he also outlined a robust foreign policy agenda to help correct the mistakes of previous administrations and restore trust in American leadership abroad.\r\n\r\nVia YouTube\r\n\u201cThis morning\u2019s terrorist attack reminded all of us that danger is never far from our nation\u2019s shores. While details about the bombing in New York are still emerging, we already know one thing for certain: This was an attack not only on the American people but on the principles we stand for. It was an attack on freedom and our very way of life.\r\nThe violence we witnessed this morning stands as a stark reminder that America has many enemies. Overseas, animosity towards the United States grows stronger as the world grows ever more chaotic. And so this afternoon, Mme. President, I wish to speak on America\u2019s role in these turbulent times.\r\nAs the Trump administration works to return our country back to its rightful role as the leader of a broken world, you will find my foreign policy recommendations today to be not only intrinsically American, but also inherently good.\u2019\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\nHatch\u2019s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\n\r\nVia YouTube\u00a0\r\nMme. President, before I turn to the main portion of my remarks, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize two staffers who were instrumental in helping us pass the\u00a0Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u00a0earlier this month.\u00a0 James Williams, my Senior Policy Advisor, and Nick Clason, a talented young staffer, both worked long hours to help make tax reform a reality. I wanted to take just a brief moment to recognize them for the late nights they spent helping me hash out the details of this bill. They are some of the hardest-working members of my staff, and I hope they know how much I appreciate them.\r\nNow, Mme. President, I wish to turn to a subject of great importance to our national security. This morning\u2019s terrorist attack reminded all of us that danger is never far away from our nation\u2019s shores. While details about the bombing in New York are still emerging, we already know one thing for certain: This was an attack not only on the American people but on the principles we stand for. It was an attack on freedom and our very way of life.\u00a0\r\nThe violence we witnessed this morning stands as a stark reminder that America has many enemies. Overseas, animosity towards the United States grows stronger as the world grows ever more chaotic. And so today, Mme. President, I wish to speak on America\u2019s role in these turbulent times.\u00a0\r\nAs the Trump administration works to return our country back to its rightful role as the leader of a broken world, you will find my foreign policy recommendations today to be not only intrinsically American, but also inherently good.\u00a0\r\nMy solution to the chaos that now grips the world is the simple principle articulated by President Reagan over thirty years ago in his\u00a0Evil Empire\u00a0speech. Addressing the National Association of Evangelicals, he said these words: \u201cAmerica is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.\u201d\r\nMme. President, to be sure, we find ourselves in a world very different from that which President Reagan faced. Today, the structured diplomatic environment we once operated in has come into question with the fall of local governments in much of the Middle East. Global alliances, while strong in the commitments and connectivity among member nations, are weak in direction and long-term purpose. Political narratives of states\u2014once stable and predictable\u2014must today compete with the conversations being had on the streets and in the classrooms by those with access to mobile phones and social media.\r\nSince Reagan\u2019s time, the world has not only grown more complicated but also more dangerous. The threat of state-on-state military showdowns seems imminent\u2014particularly with North Korea and Iran. Where we have achieved military successes we remain reluctant to declare victory, as is the case with ISIS. And to deal with the most intractable issues, such as the conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we seem to rely on partner nations who often work at cross purposes with our own objectives.\r\nAnd how has the United States engaged with this chaos? Well, in many cases, President Obama sought to ignore it altogether. Indeed, if his foreign policy could be boiled down to two words, they would be these: Stay out. The Obama administration spent the better part of eight years making disengagement a cornerstone of American foreign policy, captured by the euphemism\u00a0offshore balancing\u2014in other words, deferring to local actors to manage regional problems.\u00a0\r\nThe Obama doctrine offered easy answers to complex problems. But easy answers are rarely the right answers. And a gradual US withdrawal from an increasingly chaotic world under President Obama only made matters worse. And so, thanks to the hands-off approach of his predecessor, President Trump inherited a truly unprecedented state of world disorder.\r\nDespite these great challenges, our ability to achieve good in the world has not diminished. But if we are to achieve good in the world\u2014if we are to restore peace and stability in these troubled times\u2014then we must first rediscover our purpose in global affairs. We must make an honest assessment of where we have gone wrong in the past and how we can improve in the future.\r\nIn our engagement with the world, we seem to have drifted far from how we used to do things.\r\nThe foreign policy of President Obama, for example, chose to transact in one of two words:\u00a0threats\u00a0and\u00a0interests. How big is the threat to national security that ISIS or a nuclear Iran poses? What is the US interest in Syria? How do we preserve American security and interests in the South Pacific? Under this myopic approach, anything that didn\u2019t fit neatly into either a\u00a0threat\u00a0or\u00a0interest\u00a0was of little importance. The foreign policy of the Obama years put the United States in a short-term responsive mode, with little capacity to ask about the future.\r\nRediscovering our purpose in the world requires us to look beyond mere considerations of threats and interests. It requires us to reconnect with our core values by making them central to our foreign policy. Foremost among those values is promoting freedom. Freedom is what we stand for as a nation. As President Reagan said, \u201cAmerica is freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It\u2019s fragile; it needs protection.\u201d\r\nPresident Bush carried this tradition, squarely identifying the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as enemies of freedom. And as he keenly observed, what divided the United States from its adversaries was not faith, skin color, gender, or race, but hatred of America and the freedoms it stands for. \u00a0\r\nAnd President Bush did not mince words in describing exactly who our enemy was. Following the 9/11 attacks, he described those who committed the attacks as belonging to \u201ca fringe form of\u00a0Islamic extremism\u00a0that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.\u201d In his use of the phrase\u00a0Islamic extremism, President Bush was not afraid to call the enemy by its name\u2014and neither were our Muslim allies who joined us in the fight against terrorism.\u00a0\r\nBut in the name of political correctness, President Obama refused to use the words\u00a0Islamic extremism, insisting instead on the vague expression\u00a0violent extremism. This small but consequential change caused deep conceptual and bureaucratic damage to our strategy and our institutions.\r\nNot only did the Obama administration distract us from gaining understanding of who the adversary is and the tools needed to fight and understand him, but it also deemed irrelevant once-successful government programs on the grounds that they did not adequately address this Beltway term of\u00a0violent extremism. Meanwhile, jihadist groups outpaced and outmaneuvered Obama\u2019s sophistry by strategically embedding themselves within local populations in Syria and Iraq, disguising themselves as moderate and protective of local populations.\r\nMme. President, in place of the feckless foreign policy of the Obama years, I offer instead a global policy defined by one word: Purpose. With purpose, we can look to the future and address the kind of legacy we hope to leave behind. With purpose, we can define what it is we seek to achieve in the world, where we can make a difference, and how we can effect lasting change on a global scale.\r\nRediscovering our purpose in global affairs doesn\u2019t mean giving up our focus on threats and interests. Quite the opposite; it means ensuring that the way in which we address threats and interests helps us achieve our ultimate goal\u2014that of ensuring freedom in the world.\r\nToday\u2019s world offers many opportunities to act with renewed purpose in the defense of freedom. In Syria, for example, a collapsing ISIS caliphate and a bloody civil war leave a traumatized population in their wake. While a political solution for all of Syria seems remote, we can work towards meaningful goals in the near-term to help resettle internally displaced persons. Although much of the country remains at war, we should focus on helping the most vulnerable populations within these pockets of promise\u2014those neighborhoods in northwest Syria and along the Jordanian and Israeli borders. Within these pockets of promise, we can change people\u2019s lives\u2014and ultimately, the region\u2014by working with our local partners to build hospitals and schools with modern curricula.\r\nIn Iran, too, we can make a difference. The President\u2019s recent decision to decertify the Iran deal was itself a step in the right direction. The Iran deal singlehandedly gave international legitimacy to an enemy regime openly committed to the destruction of the United States and its allies. The deal was indeed a bad one; its only achievement, if it can be called such, was deferring the question of when, not whether, Iran will be able to achieve a nuclear weapon. And it only hardened the hostile voices against the United States, allowing them to build a case that those who oppose the deal are enemies of the Iranian people. This assertion is plainly false. As the President noted in his address to the United Nations, the good people of Iran want change, and they are the regime\u2019s longest-suffering victims.\r\nThe President now has the opportunity to act with renewed purpose in the region, dealing a final blow to the Ayatollah\u2019s antics. Moving forward, as we leverage military strength to disrupt the regime\u2019s hostile activities around the world, we can also actively use diplomatic channels to support the wishes of the Iranian people\u2014to promote\u00a0their\u00a0freedoms, and to help them realize the opportunities their government denies them.\r\nMeanwhile, in North Korea, as we prepare for any scenario that might await us, we must acknowledge our ultimate strategic advantage\u2014our allies. The greatest threat to Kim Jong-Un is that he is completely isolated from his neighbors and his people.\u00a0\r\nAs we seek diplomatic approaches to deescalating the tensions, we must ensure that it is the right kind of diplomacy with the right message: a message about the future of the region, and the future of a new North Korea in that region. If Mr. Kim does not realize the need to change his ways, then certainly he will get that message when he sees the might of his neighbors working with the United States towards shared objectives. That is the power of alliances, of strong and loyal partnerships.\r\nBut even as we resolve to do good in these situations, we must remain as vigilant and aggressive as ever in meeting the threats that no doubt will continue to test us. The key will be to stand true to ourselves and our allies. That\u2019s what we did when the President recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week. And that\u2019s what I sought to do in my meetings with Prime Minister Theresa May and MI5 Director General Andrew Parker during my visit to the United Kingdom last month. There, I highlighted the need to pass legislation to enable our two nations to work more closely together in the fight against terror and criminal activity.\r\nWe talked about my\u00a0International Communications Privacy Act, which would create a clear legal framework for law enforcement officials to access data relevant to criminal investigations stored in other countries. We also spoke about legislation to implement the US-UK data-sharing agreement, which would give law enforcement in our two countries reciprocal rights to access data stored in the other country under certain prescribed circumstances. I told the Prime Minister and the Director General that I believe these two pieces of legislation are closely linked and that I am actively looking for vehicles to move them forward.\r\nThis is precisely what President Reagan meant when he welcomed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to Washington upon assuming the presidency: our two countries are \u201ckindred nations of like-minded people, and must face their tests together. [For indeed], the responsibility for freedom is ours to share.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\r\nMme. President, it is when America realizes its purpose\u2014to do good in the world by defending freedom\u2014that our greatness will be known. As we bring ourselves out from the margins of international affairs and piece together the broken shards of that world order we have worked for decades to shape, let us help the administration and the country rediscover the purpose we were destined to pursue. Only then, and only together, will we be able to make America and the world great again.\u00a0\r\nI yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/socialcapitalproject?ContentRecord_id=24993658-359C-4039-B672-19AF5E444B0F", "Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing", "2017-12-11", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Note that in all analyses, \u201cunmarried\u201d includes women cohabiting with a romantic partner who is not her husband. \u201cMarried\u201d includes couples in which one spouse is absent from the home and (except where noted) separated couples.\r\n  \r\nFigure 1. Share of Births that Occur to Unmarried Women, 1940-2015\r\n1940-1999 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99, National Vital Statistics Reports 48(16), by Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bacharach, October 18, 2000 \u201cNumber, rate, and percent of births to unmarried women and birth rate for married women: United States, 1940-99,\u201d Table 1, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf.\r\n2000-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2014, National Vital Statistics Reports 64(12), by Brady E. Hamilton et al., December 23, 2015, \u201cBirths and birth rates for unmarried and married women: United States, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000\u20132014\u201d Table B, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf.\r\n2015 estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2015, National Vital Statistics Reports 66(1), by Joyce A. Martin, Brady E. Hamilton, Michelle J.K. Osterman, Anne K. Driscoll, and T.J. Mathews, January 5, 2017, \u201cBirths and birth rates for unmarried women, by age and race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 2015,\u201d Table 15, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_01.pdf.\r\n  \r\nFigure 2. Median Age at First Marriage among Women, 1890-2016\r\nU.S. Census Bureau, Historical Marital Status Tables, \u201cEstimated Median Age at First Marriage: 1890 to present,\u201d accessed December 5, 2017, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/marital/ms2.xls.\r\n  \r\nFigure 3. Percentage of Women Ages 30-34 Never Married, 1880-2016\r\n1880-1970 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of decennial census data, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, accessed December 5, 2017, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Steven Ruggles, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 7.0 [dataset], [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017], accessed December 5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V7.0.)\r\nThe 1850-1950 trend includes women who are separated, as it is not possible to distinguish them from never-married women prior to 1950. The 1950-1970 trend excludes separated women.\r\n1962-2016 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset], [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017], accessed December 5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V5.0.) Separated women are excluded.\r\n  \r\nFigure 4. Percentage of Ever-Married Women Ages 50-54 Who Ever Divorced, 1940-2015\r\n1940-1980 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the decennial census and the American Community Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017.) It is not possible to distinguish previously widowed from previously divorced women, unless either occurred after the most recent marriage (in which case their marital status at the time of the survey indicates divorced or widowed). We assume the ratio of ever divorced to ever widowed women among those with two or more marriages to be the same in each year as the ratio of currently divorced to currently widowed women 50-54. This approach misses some widows who also have been divorced and thereby undercounts ever-divorced women (if our assumption is otherwise correct). Estimates are unavailable in the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses or in the American Community Survey prior to 2008.\r\n  \r\nFigure 5. Percentage of Women Ages 15-44 Who are Married, 1880-2016\r\n1880-1970 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of decennial census data, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017.)\r\nThe 1850-1950 trend excludes women who are separated, as they are combined with never-married women in the data prior to 1950. The 1950-1970 trend includes separated women.\r\n1962-2016 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0, 2017.) Separated women are included.\r\n  \r\nFigure 6. Births to Married Couples per 1,000 Married Women, 1950-2015\r\n1950-1989 estimates are from Ventura et al., Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99, Table 1.\r\n1990-2000 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990s and New Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000 and 2001: United States, National Vital Statistics Reports 51(12), by Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, and Stephanie J. Ventura, August 4, 2003, \u201cBirth rates for married women, by age, race, and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 1990\u20132001,\u201d Table 8, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_12.pdf.\r\n2001-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015 \u201cBirths and birth rates for unmarried and married women: United States, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000\u20132014,\u201d Table B.\r\n2015 estimate is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017, \u201cTrends in marital and nonmarital birth rates: United States, 2005\u20132015,\u201d Figure 4.\r\n  \r\nFigure 7. Pregnancy Rates among Married Women, 1960-64 to 2005-09\r\nThese rates combine estimates of births from marital conceptions, abortions obtained by married women, and miscarriages and still births experienced by married women. Births from marital conceptions are from our analyses of the 1980 and 1995 Fertility and Marital History Supplements to the June Current Population Survey (CPS) and of various cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). We pool births from five-year intervals (e.g., 1960-1964 and 2005-2009) but show data points in the chart at years ending in \u201c2\u201d and \u201c7\u201d (e.g., 1962 and 2007).\r\nThe 1960-1964 estimate relies on the 1980 CPS data, the 1970-1974 estimate is an average from both the 1980 and 1995 CPS, the 1980-1984 estimate is an average from the 1995 CPS and the 1988 NSFG, the 1990-1994 estimate is an average from the 1995 CPS and 1995 NSFG, the 1995-1999 estimate is from the 2002 NSFG, the 2000-2004 estimate is from the 2006-2010 NSFG, and the 2005-2009 estimate is an average from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG.\r\nThese specific surveys were selected for specific birth cohorts because they are representative of women who were between the ages of 15 and 44 at the time of their child\u2019s birth (or reasonably close to representative). The 1980 CPS supplement included women as old as 75, which means that birth cohorts from as recently as 1979 are represented, as are cohorts from 1949 (when 75-year-old women taking the survey would have been 44 years old). The 1995 CPS supplement included women as old as 65, meaning it covers birth cohorts from 1974 to 1994. We chose to analyze the 1960-1974 cohorts using the 1980 CPS and the 1970-1994 cohorts using the 1995 CPS. (For the 1970 cohort, the 1995 CPS only captures births to women who were 15-40, for the 1971 cohort only births to women 15-41, and so on up to 15-44 for the 1974 cohort. The results were very similar to the 1970-1974 estimates using the 1980 CPS.)\r\nFor the NSFG surveys, which only include women up to age 44, the birth cohorts are somewhat less representative. In the 1988 NSFG, for instance, not all 1988 births to 44-year-old women will have occurred. More problematically, if one would like to capture the 1980 birth cohorts, one will miss 1980 births to women age 37 or higher, because those women were older than 44 in 1988 and thus excluded from the NSFG. The 1984 birth cohort will exclude births to women older than 40 for the same reason.\r\nAs a rule of thumb, we used an NSFG survey to represent a five-year birth cohort if births to all women 34 years old or younger were represented in the survey. In 2015, 84 percent of all births occurred to women under 35 years old, and 97 percent occurred to women under 40 years old, while just 56 percent occurred to women under 30 years old. (See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017.) We arrived at this rule after comparing estimates produced by different NSFG surveys for the same five-year birth cohorts. Estimates from surveys that excluded births to women, say, older than 42 were consistently similar to estimates from surveys excluding births to women, say, older than 36. In addition, estimates of the share of births that were to single mothers consistently were close to estimates from vital statistics data. In contrast, estimates from surveys excluding births to women, say, older than 29 indicated notably fewer births and yielded a higher share of births to single mothers.\r\nThe most uncertain of these estimates is the one for 2005-2009, which averages five-year estimates from the most recent two NSFG surveys. The two surveys provided consistent estimates\u201444 percent and 43 percent of births were to single mothers\u2014but those estimates were somewhat higher than in vital statistics data (39 percent).\r\nThe analyses using the CPS modify the approach in an earlier Census Bureau report. (See U.S. Census Bureau, Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994, Current Population Reports, by Amara Bachu, October 1999, https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf.) That report compares the timing of first births to that of first marriages for women 15-29. We generalize to all births to women of all ages. For each woman in the data, we compare dates for up to five births to dates of up to three marriages and up to three marriage terminations. For each birth, we characterize it as coming from a nonmarital conception leading to a nonmarital birth (births occurring while a woman was single), a nonmarital conception followed by a shotgun marriage (births occurring less than eight months subsequent to a marriage), or a marital conception (births occurring eight months or more after a marriage).\r\nThe NSFG analyses compare reported marital status at the time of conception to marital status at the child\u2019s birth. We confirmed that our methodology produced a very similar number of births and distribution of births by marital status at conception by marital status at birth as in U.S. Census Bureau (1999) for the same birth cohorts.\r\nWe use the distribution of births estimated from these samples, averaged across samples as indicated, and divide the number of births (sometimes averaging across samples first) by five so that we can add births to annual estimates of abortion.\r\nTo estimate abortions by marital status, we begin with abortion ratios (abortions divided by the sum of abortions plus births) for married and unmarried women age 15-44. For 1974, 1984, 1994, 1999, and 2004, those ratios are from the Guttmacher Institute. (See Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, \u201cTrends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortion, 1974 to 2004,\u201d Guttmacher Institute, August 2008, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/trendswomenabortions-wtables.pdf.)\r\nFor 2008, we compute the abortion ratios for women age 15-44 from abortion and birth estimates. Abortion estimates are computed by multiplying the number of abortions by the marital and nonmarital share of abortions. (See Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, \u201cAbortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,\u201d Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49, no. 1[2017], 17-27, Table 1.) Birth estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015, Table B and Table 1.\r\nFor 1960-1964 and 1965-1969, we begin with an estimate of abortions (legal and illegal) in 1969 from a 1982 study. (See Willard Cates, \u201cLegal Abortion: The Public Health Record,\u201d Science 215, no. 4540(1982), 1586-1590, Figure 1.) The illegal estimate (700,000) is the midpoint of a wide range estimated for 1955 (200,000-1,200,000). (See Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.) It is also very close to the number implied by a 1968 study of central, urban North Carolina (698,914), which used an inventive methodology that allowed an estimate of abortions to be obtained from the overall results of those surveyed without any individual in the study having to admit to having one. (See James R. Abernathy, Bernard G. Greenberg, and Daniel G. Horvitz, \u201cEstimates of Induced Abortion in Urban North Carolina,\u201d Demography 7, no. 1[1970], 19-29.) Applying this North Carolina study\u2019s estimates to the 1967 population of women produced an estimate of around 829,000 abortions. Thus, 700,000 (or 722,000 adding in legal abortions) is likely an underestimate for 1969, and it is likely somewhat of an underestimate for 1960-1964 and 1965-1969.\r\nWe then compute the 1969 abortion ratio using birth estimates from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015. Finally, we distribute these births between married and unmarried women by comparing the overall abortion ratio in 1974 to the marital and nonmarital abortion ratios in 1974 and applying those ratios of ratios to the overall abortion ratio for 1969. We assume the 1969 abortion ratios for married and unmarried women apply to 1960-1964 and to 1965-1969. As a check against this approach, we re-estimated the marital and nonmarital abortion ratios using 1979 ratios instead of 1974 ones, which produces significantly smaller nonmarital abortion ratios for the 1960s. None of the results discussed in the paper are qualitatively different in any important way using these estimates.\r\nOnce we have the abortion ratios for each year, we then apply the ratios by marital status to the number of births by marital status at birth, using the estimates from the CPS and NSFG (births following a shotgun marriage included with marital births). For example, the 1974 abortion ratios are applied to births to married and unmarried women from 1970 to 1974, the 1984 ratio to births from 1980 to 1984, etc.\r\nWe add births from marital conceptions to marital abortions and births from nonmarital conceptions to nonmarital abortions. We convert these to rates by dividing by married and unmarried women. These come from our analyses using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, using decennial census data for 1960-1964, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples and data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey for 1970-2009, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017; Flood et al., 2017.) For 1960-1964, the estimate is interpolated between census years by multiplying the intercensal population change from 1960 to 1970 by 0.2 (corresponding roughly to a 1962 estimate). The estimates for 1970-2009 are actually five-year averages (1970-74,\u2026, 2005-09). These estimates are adjusted by adding one quarter of births that come from a shotgun marriage to the number of unmarried women and subtracting them from the number of married women. This roughly reflects the fact that in the CPS data from which the 1970-2009 estimates are drawn, the survey takes place primarily in March, and at that point, one quarter of any year\u2019s shotgun marriages might be expected to have taken place.\r\nFor \u201cfetal death rates\u201d (miscarriages and still births) by marital status, we begin with 1990-2004 estimates of fetal loss rates by marital status from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, \u201cEstimated Pregnancy Rates by Outcome for the United States, 1990-2004, National Vital Statistics Reports 56(15), by Stephanie J. Ventura, Joyce C. Abma, William D. Mosher, and Stanley K. Henshaw, April 14, 2008, \u201cPregnancy, live birth, and induced abortion rates by marital status and race and Hispanic origin: United States, 1990\u20132004,\u201d Table 5, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_15.pdf.\r\nWe use 2009 fetal loss rate estimates by marital status from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Pregnancy Rates for U.S. Women Continue to Drop, Data Brief no. 136, by Sally C. Curtin, Joyce C. Abma, Stephanie J. Ventura, and Stanley K. Henshaw, December 2013, \u201cPregnancy rates, by outcome and marital status: United States, 1990, 2000, and 2009,\u201d Figure 5, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db136.pdf.\r\nWe compute 1980 rates by subtracting (for each marital status) the live birth rates and the induced abortion rates from the pregnancy rates, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Trends in Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates by Outcome: Estimates for the United States, 1976-96, Vital Health Statistics 21(56), by Stephanie J. Ventura, William D. Mosher, Sally C. Curtin, Joyce C. Abma, and Stanley K. Henshaw, January 2000, \u201cPregnancy, live birth, and induced abortion rates by marital status and race and Hispanic origin: United States, 1980 and 1990\u201395,\u201d Table 6, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_056.pdf.\r\nGetting fetal loss rate estimates by marital status for 1960-1964 and 1970-1974 was more difficult. Fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation per 1,000 live births or fetal losses for women with \u201clegitimate\u201d and \u201cillegitimate\u201d pregnancies are available for 1945, 1955, and 1960 from U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1940-1960, by Robert D. Grove and Alice M. Hetzel, 1968, \u201cFetal mortality ratios by legitimacy status, age of mother, and color: Reporting States, 1945,1966-60,\u201d Table 36, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf. The same source provides the same fetal loss rates for white and black women, which closely match the rates for, respectively, \u201clegitimate\u201d and \u201cillegitimate\u201d pregnancies. This fact is useful because fetal loss rates for whites and blacks are available from this source for 1960, 1970, and 1980 too. Substituting white and black rates for married and unmarried rates per 1,000 live births or fetal losses, and using births per 1,000 married and unmarried women from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000), we computed fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation per 1,000 married and unmarried women for 1960, 1970, and 1980. What we need are fetal losses from pregnancies of any length per 1,000 married and unmarried women. We compute the ratios of the 1960-to-1980 rates for fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation (separately for married and unmarried women) and of the 1970-to-1980 rates. Finally, we apply these ratios to our 1980 fetal loss rates by marital status from above.\r\nAdding fetal loss rates to the pregnancy rates involving live births or abortions yields overall pregnancy rates. We use 1960, 1970, and 1980 fetal loss rates for our 1960-1964, 1970-1974, and 1980-1984 pregnancy rates, and we use 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2009 rates for 1990-1994, 1995-1997, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009.\r\n  \r\nFigure 8. Births to Single Mothers per 1,000 Single Women, 1940-2015\r\n1940-1989 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, Table 1.\r\n1990-2000 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990s and New Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000 and 2001: United States, National Vital Statistics Reports 51(12), by Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, and Stephanie J. Ventura, August 4, 2003, \u201cBirth rates for unmarried women, by age, race, and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 1990\u20132001,\u201d Table 7, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_12.pdf.\r\n2001-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015, Table B.\r\n2015 estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017, Table 15.\r\n  \r\nFigure 9. Percent of Teenage Women Who Have Ever Had Sex, 1960-2015\r\n1960-1972 \u201cNever-Married 19\u201d estimates (never-married women age 19) are taken from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, \u201cThe Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women\u2019s Career and Marriage Decisions,\u201d Journal of Political Economy 110, no. 4, 730-770. We eyeballed the estimates shown in the \u201cbefore 19\u201d line in Figure 6. The 1941 birth cohort would have been 19 in 1960, so we use the estimate for that cohort as our \u201c1960\u201d estimate. Similarly, the 1953 cohort would have been 19 in 1972.\r\n1971-1982 \u201cAge 18-19, Premarital\u201d estimates are from Sandra L. Hofferth, Joan R. Kahn, and Wendy Baldwin, \u201cPremarital Sexual Activity Among U.S. Teenage Women Over the Past Three Decades,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 19, no. 2(1987), 46-53, Table 2. We calculate the simple average of the 18- and 19-year-old rates. The rates indicate the share of all women 18-19 (married or unmarried) who ever had had premarital sex.\r\n1982-1995 \u201cAge 18-19\u201d estimates are from Susheela Singh and Jacqueline E. Darroch, \u201cTrends in Sexual Activity Among Adolescent American Women: 1982-1995,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 31, no. 5(1999), 212-219, Table 2, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3121299.pdf.\r\n1988-2008 \u201cNever-Married 18-19\u201d estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease National Center for Health Statistics, Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, G. Martinez, C.E. Copen, and J.C. Abma, Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2006\u20132010 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital Health Statistics 23(31), October 2011, \u201cNever-married females and males aged 15\u201319 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2006\u20132010,\u201d Table 1, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf.\r\n2013 \u201cNever-Married 18-19\u201d estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011\u20132015, National Health Statistics Reports no. 104, by Joyce C. Abma and Gladys M. Martinez, June 22, 2017, \u201cPercentage of never-married females and males aged 15\u201319 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 2002, 2006\u20132010, and 2011\u20132015,\u201d Table 1, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf. The estimate is actually a five-year average from 2011-2015.\r\n  \r\nFigure 10. Pregnancy and Birth Rates among Unmarried Women, 1960-64 to 2010-14\r\n1962-2007 nonmarital pregnancy estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. See note to Figure 7.\r\n1962-2007 nonmarital birth estimates are five-year averages of the estimates in Figure 8. For example, \u201c1962\u201d is the average of the 1960-1964 rates.\r\n  \r\nFigure 11. Unintended Pregnancies and Abortions as a Share of Pregnancies among Unmarried Women, 1974-2009\r\n1974-2009 nonmarital abortion estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. See the note to Figure 7.\r\n1980-1984 to 2005-2009 nonmarital unintended pregnancy estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. We estimate nonmarital unintended pregnancies ending in a birth using data from the National Survey of Family Growth. We use the 1988 NSFG for the 1980-1984 estimate, the 1995 NSFG for the 1985-1989 and 1990-1994 estimates, the 2002 NSFG for the 1995-1999 estimate, and the 2006-2010 NSFG for the 2000-2004 estimate. We average 2005-2009 estimates from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG. See the note to Figure 7 for our rationale.\r\nTo these unintended births, we add estimates of nonmarital abortions among women 15-44. Then we divide by estimates of the number of nonmarital pregnancies among women 15-44. See the note to Figure 7 for details on both of these calculations. Unlike in our other analyses, we use only the NSFG to estimate births when we compute the number of nonmarital pregnancies (ignoring the CPS completely).\r\nThese estimates are shown in the chart at 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007.\r\n  \r\nFigure 12. Percent of Births to Women that Began as Unwed Pregnancies and Percent of Unwed Births, 1950-54 to 2005-09\r\nEstimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of CPS and NSFG data. See the note to Figure 7.\r\n  \r\nFigure 13. Shotgun Marriage Rate, 1950-54 to 2005-09\r\n1950-2009 estimates of the share of unwed births that follow a shotgun marriage are from Social Capital Project analyses of CPS and NSFG data. See the note to Figure 7.\r\n1960-2009 estimates of the share of unwed pregnancies that end in a post-shotgun-marriage birth are from Social Capital Project analyses. The computation begins with the nonmarital pregnancy rates estimated for Figure 7 (see the note to that figure). We multiply the rates by the number of unmarried women (including as unmarried women a number equal to one-fourth of births following a shotgun marriage) to get nonmarital pregnancies (rather than rates). We then divide the number of nonmarital births following a shotgun marriage (see the note to Figure 7) by the number of pregnancies.\r\n  \r\nFigure 14. Increase in the Share of Births That Are to Unwed Mothers, and Counterfactual Scenarios, 1960-64 to 2005-09\r\nThese estimates are based on those computed for Figure 7 (see the note to that figure). We decompose births from nonmarital conceptions in each year as the product of the number of women ages 15-44, the share of women 15-44 who are single, the nonmarital pregnancy rate per 1,000 women 15-44 (but excluding fetal deaths), and the percentage of nonmarital pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths) that do not end in abortion.\r\nWe decompose nonmarital births as the product of births from nonmarital conceptions and one minus the shotgun marriage rate. We decompose births from marital conceptions as the product of the number of women ages 15-44, the share of women 15-44 who are married, the marital pregnancy rate (excluding fetal deaths), and the percentage of marital pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths) that do not end in abortion. We decompose marital births as births from marital conceptions plus the product of births from nonmarital conceptions and the shotgun marriage rate.\r\nFinally, we compute the unwed birth share as unwed births divided by the sum of marital and unwed births. This decomposition allows us to hold any of the component variables mentioned above at early 1960s levels while allowing other component variables to change over time. These decompositions resulted in estimated unwed birth shares of 7.9 percent in the early 1960s and 43.4 percent in the late 2000s (compared with 6.0 averaging vital statistics data estimates from 1960 to 1964 and 39.3 percent averaging 2005 to 2009).\r\nThese simulations ignore fetal deaths and thereby assume that they are a constant share of pregnancies over the period. Our estimates suggest that, actually, fetal deaths were 13 percent of nonmarital pregnancies in 1960-1964 and 12 percent in 2005-2009, while they were 28 percent of marital pregnancies in 1960-1964 and 22 percent in 2005-2009. (See the notes to Figure 7.) These changes are too small to qualitatively affect our results.\r\n  \r\nFigure 15. Increase in the Share of Births That Are to Unwed Mothers, and Counterfactual Scenarios, Previously Childless Women 15-29, 1960-64 to 2005-09\r\nThese estimates are based on estimates for childless women ages 15-29 that are analogous to the estimates for all women ages 15-44 computed for the analyses in Figure 7. Beginning with births by marital status at conception and at birth, for 1960-1994 we use estimates taken from U.S. Census Bureau (1999) of the number of births and distribution. For 1995-2009, we produce our own estimates using various NSFG surveys. The 1995-1999 estimates are averages from the 2002 and 2006-2010 NSFG, the 2000-2004 estimates are averages from the 2006-2010 and 2011-2013 NSFG, and the 2005-2009 estimates are averages from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG.\r\nWe estimate abortions as for all women ages 15-44, except that we have to assume that the abortion ratios (abortions divided by the sum of abortions and births) for unmarried and married childless women ages 15-29 are the same as for all unmarried and married women ages 15-44.\r\nHow valid is this assumption? Abortion ratios for married and unmarried women between the ages of 15 and 29 (childless or not) were close to those for married and unmarried women between the ages of 15 and 44 in 1983 and 1987. The ratio for younger married women was about 15 percent lower than for all married women in both years, and the ratio for younger unmarried women was 1 to 2 percentage points lower. This is reassuring in that the difference between the two age groups is always small and is similar in both years. The discrepancies are not enough to qualitatively change our point-in-time 1980s estimates, but if the bias changed over time, that would affect our trends. See Stanley K. Henshaw, \u201cCharacteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982-1983,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 19, no. 1(1987): 5-9, and Stanley K. Henshaw, Lisa M. Koonin, and Jack C. Smith, \u201cCharacteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 23, no. 2(1991), 75-81.\r\nIt is not clear whether the ratios for childless younger women are similar to the ratios for all women. Childless women account for a declining share of abortions over time\u201458 percent in 1980 but just 41 percent in 2014\u2014but so do women 15-29 (82 percent versus 72 percent). See Henshaw et al. (1991) and Jenna Jerman, Rachel K. Jones, and Tsuyoshi Onda, \u201cCharacteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008,\u201d Guttmacher Institute, May 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf. It is likely, then, that childless women account for a similar share of women 15-29 over time, which suggests that the abortion ratio for women 15-29 is roughly no better or worse a proxy for the ratio among childless women 15-29 over time.\r\nAs for the analyses in Figure 7, our estimates for the number of married and unmarried women come from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, using decennial census data for 1960-1964 (http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples) and data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey for 1970-2009 (https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples). (Ruggles et al., 2017; Flood et al., 2017.)\r\nWe conduct the counterfactual simulations for the results displayed in Figure 15 in the same way as for Figure 14. As in the Figure 14 analyses, these simulations ignore fetal deaths and thereby assume that they are a constant share of pregnancies over the period.\r\n  \r\n1 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values, 2011), accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=81#.UV7T6ze9EgU. \r\n2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS\u20134), by A.J. Sedlak et al., 2010, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/fourth-national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-report-to. \r\n3 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences; Robert I. Lerman and W. Bradford Wilcox, \u201cFor Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America,\u201d American Enterprise Institute & Institute for Family Studies, October 28, 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.aei.org/publication/for-richer-for-poorer-how-family-structures-economic-success-in-america/. \r\n4 U.S. Census Bureau, \u201cPoverty Status of Families, by Type of Family, Presence of Related Children, Race and Hispanic Origin,\u201d Historical Poverty Tables Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html. \r\n5 Future work from the Social Capital Project will address the question of the causal effects of growing up with married parents. \r\n6 See Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider, \u201cThe Causal Effects of Father Absence,\u201d Annual Review of Sociology 39 (2013), 399-427. This paper is a summary of the more sophisticated research that has been conducted since the mid-1990s. For a review of the earlier, less rigorous, literature, see Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).\r\n7 Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock, \u201cNew Families and Nonresident Father-Child Visitation,\u201d Social Forces 78, no. 1(1999), 87-116; Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock, \u201c\u2019Swapping\u2019 Families: Serial Parenting and Economic Support for Children,\u201d Journal of Marriage and Family 62, no. 1(2000), 111-122.\r\n8 For detailed methodologies used to produce the charts in this paper, see the Source Notes at the end of the paper.\r\n9 Social Capital Project computations for 2005-2009 using the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth. See the note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper.\r\n10 Sheela Kennedy and Steven Ruggles, \u201cBreaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980-2010,\u201d Demography 51, no. 2(2014): 587-598, Figure 3, http://users.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/breaking_up.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990, Monthly Vital Statistics Report 43(8), by Sally C. Clarke, March 22, 1995, \u201cDivorces and Annulments and Rates: United States, 1940-90,\u201d Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv43_09s.pdf. \r\n11 Social Capital Project computations. This conclusion is based on the trend in nonmarital pregnancies among childless women ages 15-29 leading to a first birth. See U.S. Census Bureau, Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994, Current Population Reports, by Amara Bachu, October 1999, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf. These estimates ignore miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions.\r\nAbortion was relatively rare before the early 1960s, involving perhaps 15 percent of pregnancies ending in birth or abortion by 1960. We estimate that abortions were 17 percent of conceptions that ended in birth or abortion in 1969. Computing this percentage requires estimates of the number of abortions and the number of births for the same group of women.\r\nWe use an estimate of abortions that includes illegal abortions. See Willard Cates, \u201cLegal Abortion: The Public Health Record,\u201d Science 215, no. 4540(1982), 1586-1590, Table 1. Cates takes as his illegal abortion estimate the midpoint of a range estimated at a 1955 conference sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. See Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958). This estimate is somewhat below the number implied by a 1968 study of central, urban North Carolina. See James R. Abernathy, Bernard G. Greenberg, and Daniel G. Horvitz, \u201cEstimates of Induced Abortion in Urban North Carolina,\u201d Demography 7, no. 1(1970), 19-29.\r\nWe use estimated births from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2014, National Vital Statistics Reports 64(12), by Brady E. Hamilton et al., December 23, 2015, \u201cBirths and birth rates, by race: United States, specified years 1940\u20131955 and each year, 1960\u20132014,\u201d Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf. Finally, we divide abortions by the sum of abortions and births.\r\n12 Social Capital Project computations. We use marital abortions and marital conceptions producing a birth for women ages 15-44 (see note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper). The resulting abortion ratio differs from previously published estimates in that we exclude births following shotgun marriage from marital births. For trends in conventional abortion ratios by marital status, see Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, \u201cTrends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortion, 1974 to 2004,\u201d Guttmacher Institute, August 2008, Table 2, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/trendswomenabortions-wtables.pdf.\r\n13 Social Capital Project computations. In 1982, 65 percent of married women ages 15-44 were contracepters, a figure that rose to 71 percent by 1995 but that fell to 64 percent by the early 2010s. The number of 1982 contraceptive users is from William D. Mosher, \u201cContraceptive Practice in the United States, 1982-1988,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 22, no. 5 (1990), 198-205, Table 4. The number of 1995 contraceptive users is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current contraceptive use in the United States, 2006\u20132010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995, National Health Statistics Reports no. 60, by Jo Jones, William Mosher, and Kimberly Daniels, October 18, 2012, \u201cNumber of contracepting women aged 15\u201344 years and percent distribution of method used by age and marital status: United States, 1995 and 2006\u20132010,\u201d Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf. The number of early 2010s contraceptive users is for 2011-2013, taken from, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current Contraceptive Use and Variation by Selected Characteristics Among Women Aged 15-44: United States, 2011-2013, National Health Statistics Reports no. 86, by Kimberly Daniels, Jill Daugherty, Jo Jones, and William Mosher, November 10, 2015, \u201cNumber of women aged 15\u201344 currently using a method of contraception during month of interview and percent distribution, by method, according to marital or cohabiting status, parity, and intent to have more children: United States, 2002 and 2011\u20132013,\u201d Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr086.pdf. The number of married women ages 15-44 is from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website. See Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset], (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, https://cps.ipums.org/cps/index.shtml. \r\n14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, Data Brief no. 162, by Sally C. Curtin, Stephanie J. Ventura, and Gladys M. Martinez, August 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.pdf. \r\n15 Cynthia Osborn and Sara McLanahan, \u201cPartnership Instability and Child Well-Being,\u201d Journal of Marriage and Family 69, no. 4(2007), 1065-1083.\r\n16 Among 15-19-year-olds, the share of women (including married teens) ever having had sex rose from 47 percent in 1982 to 53 percent in 1988. At that point, sexual activity among teens began a steady decline. Social Capital Project computations using Guttmacher Institute data on pregnancy rates overall and among the sexually experienced. See Guttmacher Institute, \u201cAmong women aged 15-19, rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion ratios; numbers of pregnancies, births, abortions and fetal losses; and population, 1973-2013,\u201d Table 1.1, accessed December 4, 2017 https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013_tables.pdf. We divide pregnancies per 1,000 by pregnancies per 1,000 conditional on having had sex to get the share having had sex.\r\n17 Ibid. and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011\u20132015, National Health Statistics Reports no. 104, by Joyce C. Abma and Gladys M. Martinez, June 22, 2017, \u201cPercentage of never-married females and males aged 15\u201319 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 2002, 2006\u20132010, and 2011\u20132015,\u201d Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf. (See the Source Note for Figure 9 at the end of this paper.) The estimate for 18- and 19-year-olds is actually a five-year average from 2011-2015. Combining men and women, 48 percent of 20-year-olds had engaged in premarital sex between 1959 and 1968, compared to 65 percent between 1969 and 1978, 72 percent between 1979 and 1988, and 76 percent between 1989 and 1998. See Lawrence B. Finer, \u201cTrends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003,\u201d Public Health Reports 122, no. 1(2007), 73-78. \r\n18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of STD Prevention, Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2015, October 2016, \u201cSexually Transmitted Diseases \u2014 Reported Cases and Rates of Reported Cases per 100,000 Population, United States, 1941\u20132015,\u201d Table 1, \u201c accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats15/STD-Surveillance-2015-print.pdf. \r\n19 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016. See Tom W. Smith, Peter V. Marsden, and Michael Hout, General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016 [machine-readable data file], (Sponsored by National Science Foundation. NORC ed. Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago) [producer and distributor]. \r\n20 The number of women contracepting is from Mosher (1990) Table 4 and Daniels et al. (2015) Table 4, for 1982 and 2011-13, respectively. These estimates, both from the National Survey of Family Growth, are divided by the number of unmarried women ages 15-44, estimated from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey). \r\n21 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016 (Smith et al.) See also Jean M. Twenge, \u201cDeclines in Sexual Frequency among American Adults, 1989-2014,\u201d Archives of Sexual Behavior 46, no. 8(2017), 2389-2401. \r\n22 George H. Gallup, Jr., \u201cCurrent Views on Premarital, Extramarital Sex,\u201d Gallup, June 24, 2003, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.gallup.com/poll/8704/current-views-premarital-extramarital-sex.aspx. \r\n23 \u201cBirth Control, Divorce Top List of Morally Acceptable Issues,\u201d Gallup, June 8, 2016, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.gallup.com/poll/192404/birth-control-divorce-top-list-morally-acceptable-issues.aspx.\r\n24 General Social Survey, \u201cIs it wrong to have sex before marriage?\u201d accessed December 4, 2017, https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Gender%20&%20Marriage?measure=premarsx. \r\n25 The \u201cearly 60s\u201destimate is for 1960-1964 and based on the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth. See William D. Mosher and Christine A. Bachrach, \u201cFirst Premarital Contraceptive Use: United States, 1960-82,\u201d Studies in Family Planning 18, no. 2(1987), 83-95. The \u201cmid-80s\u201d estimate is for 1983-1988 and based on the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth. See William D. Mosher and James W. McNally, \u201cContraceptive Use at First Premarital Intercourse: United States, 1965-1988,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 23, no. 3(1991), 108-116, Table 1. Women are asked retrospectively about the year they first had premarital sex and about which contraceptive methods were used. The most recent estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982\u20132008, Vital Health Statistics 23(29), August 2010, \u201cNumber of women aged 15\u201344 years whose first premarital sexual intercourse was after menarche, and percentage who used the specified contraceptive method at first intercourse, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006\u20132008,\u201d Table 3, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. \r\n26 Social Capital Project calculations using previous studies. See Christine A. Bachrach, \u201cContraceptive Practice Among American Women, 1973-1982,\u201d Family Planning Perspectives 16, no. 6(1984), 253-259, Table 1, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006\u20132010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995, National Health Statistics Reports no. 60, by Jo Jones, William Mosher, and Kimberly Daniels, October 18, 2012, \u201cCurrent use of a method of contraception by women aged 15\u201344 years, all women, and women at risk of unintended pregnancy, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006\u20132010,\u201d Table 3, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf. \r\n27 Ibid. In addition, as discussed below, teen sexual activity rose through the 1980s and then remained elevated, but teen pregnancies declined. That decline must have been due to increased use of effective birth control. Indeed, pregnancies fell even more among sexually experienced teen women than among teen women generally.\r\n28 U.S. Census Bureau, \u201cTrends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994.\u201d\r\n29 In 1974, around 44 percent of nonmarital pregnancies ended in abortion, compared with 52 percent in 1984. Excluding fetal deaths, the estimates were 49 percent in 1974, 58 percent in 1979, and 55 percent in 1984. Social Capital Project computations. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. \r\n30 In 2009, around 31 percent of nonmarital pregnancies ended in abortion (compared with 44 percent in 1974). Social Capital Project computations. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper.\r\n31 The number of abortion providers nationally fell by 43 percent from 1982 to 2014, while the number of abortions declined by around 41 percent. On the change in abortion providers, see Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, \u201cAbortion Incidence and Services In the United States in 2000,\u201d Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35, no. 1(2003), 6-15, and Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, \u201cAbortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,\u201d Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49, no.1(2017), 17-27, Table 3. Number of abortions were computed by applying abortion rates to the number of women 15-44. Abortion rates are from Rachel K. Jones and Kathryn Kooistra, \u201cAbortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008,\u201d Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43, no. 1(2011), 41-50, Table 1, and Jones and Jerman, \u201cAbortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States.\u201d Number of women is from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey). \r\n32 \u201cAbortion,\u201d Gallup, In Depth: Topics A to Z, accessed December 4, 2017, http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx.\r\n33 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2012 (Smith et al.). \r\n34 Social Capital Project analyses. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. We estimate the figure at 48 percent in the late 2000s (compared with 49 percent in the early 1980s). Note that intended births from nonmarital pregnancies are a smaller share of nonmarital pregnancies\u201432 percent\u2014because many unintended pregnancies end in abortion or a fetal death rather than in a birth.\r\n35 Social Capital Project computations. This conclusion is based on the trend in nonmarital pregnancies among childless women ages 15-29 leading to a first birth. See U.S. Census Bureau, \u201cTrends in Premarital Childbearing.\u201d These estimates ignore miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions.\r\n36 Social Capital Project computations. See the note to Figure 15 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper.\r\n37 Ibid. \r\n38 This conclusion is in contrast to a new paper finding that liberalized abortion policy was central to changes in family formation. See Caitlin Knowles Myers, \u201cThe Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women\u2019s Access to Reproductive Control,\u201d Journal of Political Economy (forthcoming). We speculate that the difference has to do with the outcomes examined and the age ranges of women considered. Myers analyzes first marriages, first births, and shotgun marriages among women ages 15-22.\r\n39 Social Capital Project computations. See the note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. Including miscarriage and stillbirths in pregnancies, the share ending in abortion in the early 1960s was 5 percent for married women and 29 percent for unmarried women, compared with 6 percent and 31 percent in the late 2000s. For our sensitivity analyses, we reestimated the 1960-1964 nonmarital and marital abortion ratios. For instance, instead of dividing the 1974 abortion ratio for nonmarried women to the 1974 abortion ratio of all women, and then applying that to the 1960-1964 abortion ratio, we used the 1979 abortion ratios for nonmarried and all women, which produced a smaller 1960-1964 nonmarital abortion ratio. We did the same to reestimate the 1960-1964 marital abortion ratio, but the difference was so small as to not affect our simulations.\r\n40 Brink Lindsey, The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America\u2019s Politics and Culture (New York: HarperBusiness, 2007); Abraham H. Maslow, \u201cA Theory of Human Motivation,\u201d Psychological Review 50, no. 4(1943), 370-396. \r\n41 Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).\r\n42 Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, \u201cThe Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women\u2019s Career and Marriage Decisions,\u201d Journal of Political Economy 110, no. 4(2002), 730-770; Martha J. Bailey, \u201cMore Power to the Pill: The Impact of Contraceptive Freedom on Women\u2019s Life Cycle Labor Supply,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 1(2006), 289-320.\r\n43 Andrew M. Francis, \u201cThe Wages of Sin: How the Discovery of Penicillin Reshaped Modern Sexuality,\u201d Archives of Sexual Behavior 42, no. 1(2013), 5-13.\r\n44 George H. Gallup, Jr., \u201cCurrent Views on Premarital, Extramarital Sex,\u201d and \u201cBirth Control, Divorce Top List of Morally Acceptable Issues,\u201d Gallup. Similarly, General Social Survey data shows that in 1972, just 27 percent of adults said that having sex before marriage is \u201cnot wrong at all,\u201d compared to 60 percent in 2016 who said that sex before marriage is \u201cnot wrong at all.\u201d See General Social Survey, \u201cIs it wrong to have sex before marriage?\u201d\r\n45 George A. Akerloff, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, \u201cAn Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States,\u201d Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, no. 2(1996), 277-317.\r\n46 Ibid.\r\n47 Ibid.\r\n48 Ibid. \r\n49 Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 (New York: Basic Book, 1984).\r\n50 Scott Winship, \u201cWill Welfare Reform Increase Upward Mobility?\u201d Forbes, March 26, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/26/will-welfare-reform-increase-upward-mobility/#176969c03354. \r\n51 Paul Krugman, \u201cWhen Values Disappear,\u201d New York Times, March 11, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/when-values-disappear/; Jordan Weissman, \u201cThere Aren\u2019t Enough Marriageable Men,\u201d Slate, September 24, 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/24/decline_of_marriage_pew_shows_there_aren_t_enough_marriageable_men.html; Alana Semuels, \u201cWhen Factory Jobs Vanish, Men Become Less Desirable Partners,\u201d The Atlantic, March 3, 2017, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/manufacturing-marriage-family/518280/. \r\n52 See the chart in Scott Winship, \u201cOverstating the Costs of Inequality,\u201d National Affairs, Spring 2013, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/overstating-the-costs-of-inequality. \r\n53 Scott Winship, \u201cDeclining Prime-Age Male Labor Force Participation: Why Demand- and Health-Based Explanations are Inadequate,\u201d (Working Paper, Mercatus Center, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/winship-labor-force-participation-mercatus-v1.pdf; Scott Winship, \u201cEconomic Opportunity and Trump\u2019s Win,\u201d Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, November 9, 2016, accessed December 4, 2017, https://freopp.org/economic-opportunity-and-trumps-win-88eef4be5eb1; Scott Winship, \u201cIs the \u2018Decline\u2019 in Men\u2019s Earnings Behind Marriage\u2019s Demise?\u201d Forbes, March 16, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/16/is-the-decline-in-mens-earnings-at-the-bottom-behind-marriages-demise/#d6b3dc14ec40.\r\n54 Scott Winship, \u201cWhat\u2019s behind Declining Male Labor Force Participation: Fewer Good Jobs, or Fewer Men Seeking Them?\u201d Mercatus Center, 2017, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/winship_malelaborparticipation_mr_v2.pdf. \r\n55 Winship, \u201cIs the \u2018Decline\u2019 in Men\u2019s Earnings Behind Marriage\u2019s Demise?\u201d , https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/16/is-the-decline-in-mens-earnings-at-the-bottom-behind-marriages-demise/#d6b3dc14ec40.\r\n56 See the research cited in W. Bradford Wilcox, \u201cDon\u2019t be a bachelor: Why married men work harder, smarter and make more money,\u201d Washington Post, April 2, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/02/dont-be-a-bachelor-why-married-men-work-harder-and-smarter-and-make-more-money/?utm_term=.c523b7e60993.\r\n57 David T. Ellwood and Christopher Jencks, \u201cThe Uneven Spread of Single-Parent Families: What Do We Know? Where Do We Look for Answers?\u201d in Social Inequality, ed. Kathryn M. Neckerman (New York: Russell Sage, 2004), 3-78; Melissa S. Kearney and Riley Wilson, \u201cMale Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom,\u201d (Working Paper No. 23408, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w23408; Daniel T. Lichter, Diane K. McLaughlin, and David C. Ribar, \u201cEconomic Restructuring and the Retreat from Marriage,\u201d Social Science Research 31, no. 2(2002), 230-256; Robert D. Mare and Christopher Winship, \u201cSocioeconomic Change and the Decline of Marriage for Blacks and Whites,\u201d in The Urban Underclass, eds. Christopher Jencks and Paul Peterson, (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1991), 175-202; Robert G. Wood, \u201cMarriage Rates and Marriageable Men: A Test of the Wilson Hypothesis,\u201d Journal of Human Resources 30, no. 1(1995), 163-193.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=4E13DC6F-3B53-4265-A284-FD0D90A658CB", "The Wrong Man for Colombia", "2017-12-08", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "President Trump recently nominated Joseph MacManus to become the next U.S. Ambassador to Colombia. At a time when the U.S.-Colombian relationship is vital to regional security and stability, both countries deserve better. The argument against Mr. MacManus has two parts. First, MacManus does not appear to share the president\u2019s belief in an America First foreign policy. If the president wants his objectives to be accomplished around the world, it is critical that his political appointees to the State Department share his commitment to the task. What is MacManus committed to? It is hard to say for certain, but his background is cause for concern. MacManus is a career bureaucrat at the State Department who served as executive assistant to then-Secretary Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi disaster. He also worked as a top diplomat for then-Secretary John Kerry in implementing the Iran nuclear deal. A long career in diplomacy normally would be considered a positive qualification for a job at the State Department\u2014but not when that career is tied to some of America's most egregious foreign-policy blunders. Second, MacManus does not have the expertise in Latin American affairs that we should demand for this sensitive position. All but one of the past six ambassadors to Columbia had previous experience as an ambassador. The exception, outgoing Ambassador Kevin Whitaker, spent practically his entire career in Latin American diplomacy, rising to the position of deputy assistant secretary for South America before becoming an ambassador. By contrast, MacManus\u2019s experience in Latin America is limited to a period of time spent as a public diplomacy officer in Mexico and El Salvador. Political unrest is increasing across Latin America. From the growing authoritarian power of Maduro in Venezuela, to contested elections in Honduras, to the fragile peace deal between the Colombian government and FARC rebels, the United States is more reliant on Colombia than ever before. The nation is a strong ally\u2014and it is our only NATO partner in the region. We give Columbia nearly a billion dollars in foreign assistance every year. Given the stakes, we should not roll the dice on a Foggy Bottom bureaucrat with a dubious track record.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=4BE2473B-B8F4-47AD-ADF4-965AFAE2F39B", "A Big Win for Utahs Rural Communities", "2017-12-08", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "President Trump won the White House for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest reason is that rural Americans are sick and tired of rich coastal elites telling them how to live their lives. President Trump may not be able to fulfill all of his campaign promises, but he has already delivered for Utah\u2019s rural communities by coming to our state and limiting President Obama\u2019s Bears Ears National Monument and President Clinton\u2019s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Make no mistake: President Obama\u2019s Bears Ears monument was a project pushed and funded by wealthy East and West Coast liberals. The Hewlett and Packard foundations, as well as the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, gave tens of millions of dollars to supposedly \u201cgrassroots\u201d Native American groups to campaign for a new monument. But local Native Americans\u2014the people who actually live near Bears Ears and use the land\u2014did not take the money. \u201cThe whole tone of it seems like the tribes are generally being used as pawns for the environmental groups to get what they really want,\u201d Blue Mountain Dine\u2019 Vice President Byron Clarke told the Deseret News. \u201cThey are being played. It is somewhat insulting.\u201d \u201cIt seems pretty clear that the federal government over time tends to close down access,\u201d Clarke later told me. \u201cSo just as a local user of the land, I have to ask myself what\u2019s wrong with how we are using it right now? We can go hunt now, we can go fishing and cut wood now and it\u2019s pristine.\u201d  Clarke is right. The federal government does restrict access to land where a national monument has been declared. That is the entire point of the Antiquities Act: to preserve cultural treasures on federal public land by restricting access to the land. That is also why the Antiquities Act requires that monument designations be \u201cconfined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and maintenance of the objects to be protected.\u201d Neither President Clinton nor President Obama respected that limitation. Instead of responsibly working with local communities to identify just the protections needed to preserve cultural sites in San Juan and Garfield counties, they made million acre designations that were designed to transform the economic life of surrounding residents. \u201cCreation of jobs for tourism will be a benefit to the community versus those that could be lost by some of the mineral and energy jobs,\u201d Clarke told me. \u201cI think for a lot of Navajos we are skilled people, we have skills other than restaurant workers and gas station attendants. We are engineers. We are heavy equipment operators. We are welders. Those are good jobs rather than the tourism type jobs which tend to be seasonal.\u201d Ranching families also are hit hard by the restrictions that come with monument designations. After land-use restrictions at the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument kicked in, Garfield County ranchers could no longer bring water in to their cattle. Their ability to fence in water resources and maintain roads was also limited. Many families were forced to signigicantly reduce their herds, sometimes by half. The corporations pushing for monument land-use restrictions, like Patagonia and REI, claim that the monuments will create tourism jobs for the residents of Garfield and San Juan county. And they are right: the monuments do create tourism jobs. But at what cost? Moab resident Jon Kovash warns in the High Country Times that \u201cTourism also brings sprawling growth, crappy jobs, even-higher rents and home prices, and an increasingly unmanageable crush of visitors and traffic.\u201d Maybe the rich coastal liberals and their corporate pals are right. Maybe tourism is the answer for economic development in rural America. But shouldn\u2019t that choice be made by the residents who live there? Shouldn\u2019t the people who actually live near the land decide how best to use it? And maybe, just maybe, the same people who used land restrictions in their own cities to create sky-high housing prices and crushing inequality shouldn\u2019t be in the business of telling other people how to use their land. More needs to be done to protect Utah\u2019s rural communities from future Democratic presidents. We need Congress to give Utah the same Antiquities Act protections that Alaska and Wyoming have. But until then, President Trump\u2019s monument reductions are a good first step. Utah thanks him.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6732577A-689C-42FA-B030-D1DF70D1D67E", "Hatch and Wyden Lead Bipartisan Senators in Urging Extension of Secure Rural Schools Program", "2017-12-07", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) led a bipartisan group of 32 senators in sending a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), urging them to include a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Program in any end-of-year legislation. SRS supports public schools, public roads, forest health projects, emergency services, and many other essential county services for more than 775 counties across the country.\r\nThe SRS program expired on September 30, 2015, and it has not been reauthorized for FY16 or beyond. Forest counties and schools received their last authorized SRS payment in 2016. Without SRS, existing revenue-sharing payments are not sufficient to support critical services these counties must provide.\r\nThe Senators wrote:\r\nThe SRS program continues to be a critical safety-net for forest counties as we work to diversify rural economies, improve forest management and forest health, strengthen historic forest revenue sharing with local governments, and ensure that our forests provide a range of values such as clean water, jobs, and wood fiber for local economies.\r\nIn the interest of working together in a bipartisan way to support local rural communities, we ask that you include a reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools in any end-of-the-year legislation. We appreciate your assistance with this matter.\u00a0\r\nIn addition to Hatch and Wyden, senators who signed the letter include: Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), John Boozman (R-AR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Dean Heller (R-NV), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeffery A. Merkley (D-OR), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Patty Murray (D-WA), Gary Peters (D-MI), James E. Risch (R-ID), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).\r\nThe full letter, as delivered, is attached and below:\r\nDecember\u00a06, 2017\r\nThe Honorable Mitch McConnell\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The Honorable Chuck Schumer\r\nMajority Leader, U.S. Senate\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 \u00a0 Minority Leader, U.S. Senate\r\nU.S. Capitol, S-230\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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 U.S. Capitol, S-221\r\nWashington, DC 20510\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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Washington, DC 20510\r\nDear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 We write to strongly urge the inclusion of at least a two-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, which enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, in any end-of-the-year legislation.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0On U.S. Forest Service land, the federal government has historically shared 25 percent of timber harvest revenues with counties to compensate for federal ownership. On certain land managed by the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Land Management shares 50 percent of the revenue from federal timber sales with counties. Due to declining timber harvests, a critical source of funding for rural counties, sometimes referred to as \u201cforest counties,\u201d has seen significant decreases, often decimating impacted county budgets.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In 2000, Congress passed SRS with broad bipartisan support as a fiscal solution to help fund essential services resulting from the reduced revenue-sharing receipts. Since then, SRS has been a critical lifeline for over 775 counties in over 40 states across the country by helping fund more than 4,400 schools, road maintenance, law enforcement, and search and rescue operations.\u00a0 However, SRS authorization lapsed last year and rural counties are now back to simply receiving the timber revenue-sharing receipts. These receipts are up to 80 percent less than what forest counties received under SRS.\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0We are now witnessing firsthand the hardships rural counties face as a result of SRS authorization lapsing. Without the certainty of SRS payments, schools, libraries, and jails are closing. Schools that remain open will see a reduction of teachers. Roads go unpaved and become unsafe. Mental and physical health services are scaled back or even ended. Fewer and fewer law enforcement officers are forced to patrol larger and larger areas.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The SRS program continues to be a critical safety-net for forest counties as we work to diversify rural economies, improve forest management and forest health, strengthen historic forest revenue sharing with local governments, and ensure that our forests provide a range of values such as clean water, jobs, and wood fiber for local economies.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the interest of working together in a bipartisan way to support local rural communities, we ask that you include a reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools in any end-of-the-year\u00a0legislation. We appreciate your assistance with this matter.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=745", "Rep. Love Statement on Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's Capital", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\"To recognize the beautiful city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is to recognize a reality that Congress has officially acknowledged several times.\u00a0 Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for over three thousand years.\u00a0 I'm proud that the United States stands by, appreciates, and recognizes the sovereignty of our good friend and ally, Israel.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=746", "Rep. Love Supports Gun Rights, Background Check Bill", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Here is a statement from Rep. Love on passage of H.R. 38:\r\n\r\n\t\u201cToday, I voted for a bipartisan bill that strengthens public safety and protects Americans\u2019 Constitutional Rights.\u00a0 H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, ensures law-abiding citizens\u2019 Second Amendment rights don\u2019t end when they cross state lines.\u00a0 It also updates the background check reporting requirements for states to better ensure anyone with a criminal background can\u2019t obtain a firearm permit.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThe Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is \u2018the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation\u2019.\u00a0 Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry to another state, if they have passed the permit process in their home state.\u00a0 At the same time, people with certain criminal or certain mental health histories should not be allowed to have a permit, which is why it\u2019s important to strengthen background checks.\u201d\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u201cIn light of recent cruel attacks, this bill is a critical update to our laws when it comes to firearms and our Second Amendment Rights.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-announces-new-national-park-in-utah", "Rep. Stewart Announces New National Park in Utah", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)\u00a0introduced legislation to create Utah\u2019s sixth National Park, Escalante Canyons Park and Preserve, H.R. 4558.\n\u201cWith their deep narrow canyons, high plateaus, sheer cliffs, incredible vistas, and vibrant colors, the Escalante Canyons are a crown jewel in the state,\u201d Rep. Stewart said. \u201cEscalante Canyons National Park is a win-win for those wanting conservation and access. It\u2019s a win-win for those who want to share the beauty of this state but also to preserve the local culture that is so important to our communities. Additionally, this bill gives locals a stronger voice in how their backyard is managed.\u201d\n\u201cThere is a reason I live in Utah. I love it here! I love to ski. I love to hike and rock climb. I love these lands. I want to preserve them, and I believe Utahans are better suited to manage our lands than bureaucrats back in Washington.\u201d\u00a0\nSpecifically the Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act:\n\u00a0\n Creates Utah\u2019s sixth national park \u2013 Escalante Canyons National Park\n\t\t\u200bThe new park conserves this nationally important area while allowing access for hunting, fishing, trapping, and grazing.\n\t\t\tThe park maps are still being finalized by the local communities, but the boundaries will fall within the newly created Escalante Canyons Unit of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.\n\t\t\n \u00a0\n Transfers \u201cHole in the Rock Road\u201d to the state of Utah in recognition of this historically significant Mormon pioneer trail.\n \u00a0\n Creates a \u201cManagement Council\u201d comprised of local officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new monument and National Park, giving local leaders a powerful voice and seat at the table.\n \u00a0\n This bill codifies the boundaries of the new Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, as outlined by President Trump.\n \u00a0\nFor a PDF copy of the bill, click here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=27225EE7-E52E-432E-8B02-69793F213191", "Hatch Statement on President Trumps Israel Announcement", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, DC\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, issued the following statement on the President\u2019s Israel announcement:\r\n\u201cI am thrilled with the President\u2019s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his plan to move the US Embassy there. When I spoke to General McMaster yesterday, I was able to ask him a number of logistical details about the move. During my conversation with the National Security Advisor, I expressed my full support for the President\u2019s decision, which takes into careful consideration the needs of America\u2019s allies\u2014both in the region and around the world. I have long supported the recognition of Jerusalem as the official Israeli capital, most notably as a co-sponsor of the\u00a0Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act,\u00a0which my colleagues introduced to the Senate in January. The President\u2019s action, which reaffirms US legislation that has been on the books since 1995, sends a clear signal that we are prepared to defend the interests of the United States and its allies.\u201d\r\n\r\nSenator Hatch on the phone with General McMaster yesterday discussing the announcement", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=472258F4-054F-489A-B0AF-14AD5F019336", "In Access Live Event, Hatch Reaffirms Concern about Roy Moore", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014In an access live call this evening with Utahns, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), reaffirmed his previously stated concerns regarding the allegations against Judge Roy Moore, and spoke about what would happen next should he be elected to the United States Senate:\r\nLet me be very clear from the outset. I have not endorsed Roy Moore, I do not intend to, and I believe the allegations against him are incredibly serious. \r\n\u00a0\r\nAs you know, I endorsed and fought hard for Luther Strange in the Alabama Republican primary. I like Luther, and I thought he was an excellent Senator. And I\u2019ve been deeply disturbed by the accusations made against Roy Moore.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI was one of the first in the Senate to urge Roy Moore to step aside and to urge Alabamans to consider an alternative. \r\n\u00a0\r\nBut I\u2019ve also said that in the end, the decision is in the hands of the people of Alabama. \r\n\u00a0\r\nNow, that being said, serving in the Senate is a privilege, and here, we hold our members to the highest ethical standards. And I expect any of my colleagues to adhere to those standards. \u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\nShould Moore win, the Majority Leader has said that the Senate will hold an ethics investigation, and I expect that to be thorough.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=3BCD0DF4-2F65-4859-B974-4F8A984BF2F0", "Sen. Lee Applauds President Trump's Jerusalem Announcement", "2017-12-06", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Wednesday after President Trump issued a proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel\u2019s capital.\r\n\u201cI applaud President Trump\u2019s proclamation and join him in recognizing that both throughout history and today, Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel,\u201d Sen. Lee said. \u201cThe President has also been bold in directing that the State Department expeditiously begin to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, following the international custom of having official diplomatic representation in national capitals around the globe.\r\n\u201cWhile a new location is being selected for the US Embassy, the US government will continue to serve American citizens in the region and Palestinians through our consulate in Jerusalem, just as it has done for decades since the US presence in Jerusalem was established as a consulate in 1928.\r\n\"We continue to hope for peace and longtime stability between Israelis and Palestinians, but the US can no longer wait to do the right thing in recognizing the nation\u2019s rightful capital.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=742", "Rep. Mia Love Urges DACA Legislation", "2017-12-05", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, Congresswoman Love joined 31 Congressional colleagues to urge Speaker Ryan to prioritize the passage of a legislative solution for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients before the holidays. Specifically, the letter supports a permanent legislative solution that protects this population with a balanced approach \u201cthat does not harm valuable sectors of our economy nor the lives of these hard-working young people.\u201d\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThousands of DACA recipients live and work in my district, contributing to their community daily,\u201d said Rep. Love. \u201cI have no interest in separating them from what is likely the only country they know. The timeline imposed by the Administration\u2019s announcement compels us to act. \u00a0It is crucial that we bring a reasonable solution to the House floor, so we can provide certainty to this Utah population that contributes to our communities and growing economy.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tRep. Love is a cosponsor of the Recognizing America\u2019s Children (RAC) Act (H.R. 1468), which provides a pathway for DACA recipients to permanently remain in the country. She has pushed for a legislative solution for young, undocumented immigrants since the Trump Administration\u2019s announcement regarding the DACA program earlier this year.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-s-statement-regarding-president-trump-s-announcement-on", "Rep. Stewarts Statement Regarding President Trumps Announcement on National Monuments", "2017-12-04", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Salt Lake City, Utah \u2013 Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)\u00a0released the following statement in response to President Trump\u2019s announcement on the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments:\n\u201cThe Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument resides in my district. I have seen firsthand the damage that the monument has caused to the local economy. My constituents have been in a desperate need of change, and today President Trump delivered.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\n\u201cPresident Trump had the courage that no other president had. He listened to local voices that had been left out of the decision-making process for too long. On behalf of the county commissioners, the state legislators who represent the area, and the entire federal delegation, we say thank you, Mr. President.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C0858861-6F91-42DA-AF41-B0DC73E21796", "Sen. Lee Thanks President Trump for First Step in Protecting Utahs Rural Communities", "2017-12-04", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY \u2013 Sen. Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Monday after President Trump announced significant reductions to both the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. \u201cPresident Trump did the people of Utah a great favor today by rolling back harmful land use restrictions in southern Utah,\u201d Sen. Lee said. \u201cThe president has done his part and now it is time for Congress to act to protect the people of Utah from federal overreach in the future. That is why I will be introducing legislation later this week that would give Utah similar protections from Antiquities Act abuse that the states of Wyoming and Alaska currently enjoy.\u201d Sen. Lee\u2019s bill will empower state and local officials and Tribal members to manage the new national monuments designated in southern Utah by President Trump. The bill will also require the approval of Congress and the Utah state legislature for all future national monuments in the state.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2BBF10D4-F71D-4A2C-9795-98B41041B5BF", "Hatchs Historic Tax Reform Proposal Passes in the Senate", "2017-12-02", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\u201cSenate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans.\u201d\r\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement and spoke in a press conference after the Senate passed his historic tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last night:\r\n\r\nVideo Via YouTube\u00a0\r\n\u201cSenate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cRooted in pro-growth policies, this legislation will help families and individuals invest in their future, promote savings, and encourage American job creators to keep more jobs and investment here at home. The measure also takes a critical step forward in improving our nation\u2019s flawed and unworkable healthcare system. By effectively repealing the regressive Obamacare individual mandate tax, we are putting Americans in charge of their health care and giving them the freedom to choose the best coverage for themselves and their families.\u201d\r\n?\u201cThis landmark achievement is the culmination of months of hard work and cooperation among Finance Committee members; leaders from the Senate, House and administration; and the entire Senate Republican Conference. It reflects a shared desire to produce a tax system that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family, and will move our country forward to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.\u201d\r\nVideo of final passage:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe President later\u00a0tweeted\u00a0thanks to Hatch and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with a video featuring Senator Hatch\u2019s remarks:\r\n@RealDonaldTrump:\u00a0We are one step closer to delivering MASSIVE tax cuts for working families across America. Special thanks to\u00a0@SenateMajLdr\u00a0Mitch McConnell and Chairman\u00a0@SenOrrinHatch\u00a0for shepherding our bill through the Senate. Look forward to signing a final bill before Christmas!", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=13D0AFB8-30A3-4AA9-950C-EF0A07E199F9", "Hatchs Historic Tax Reform Proposal Passes in the Senate", "2017-12-02", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\u201cSenate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans.\u201d\r\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement and spoke in a press conference after the Senate passed his historic tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:\r\n\r\nVideo Via YouTube\r\n\u201cSenate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans,\u201d Hatch said. \u201cRooted in pro-growth policies, this legislation will help families and individuals invest in their future, promote savings, and encourage American job creators to keep more jobs and investment here at home. The measure also takes a critical step forward in improving our nation\u2019s flawed and unworkable healthcare system. By effectively repealing the regressive Obamacare individual mandate tax, we are putting Americans in charge of their health care and giving them the freedom to choose the best coverage for themselves and their families.\u201d\r\n?\u201cThis landmark achievement is the culmination of months of hard work and cooperation among Finance Committee members; leaders from the Senate, House and administration; and the entire Senate Republican Conference. It reflects a shared desire to produce a tax system that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family, and will move our country forward to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.\u201d\r\nVideo of final passage:\r\n\r\nVia YouTube", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=2AA6333F-C036-4A0B-9E80-C5B4340F0224", "Sen. Lee Statement on Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", "2017-12-02", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Saturday after the United States Senate passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.\u00a0\u201cUtah families are the big winners tonight thanks to the doubling of the child tax credit to $2,000,\u201d Sen. Lee said. \u201cI wish we could have done more for working families by making that credit refundable, but we did lay the groundwork for future pro-family tax reform and I am confident we will get there someday.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=741", "Rep. Love: No More Taxpayer-Funded Settlements for Sexual Harassment", "2017-12-01", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. \u2013 Outraged by the use of taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Mia Love has introduced Stop Taxpayer Obligations to Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment (STOP) Act in the House of Representatives.\u00a0 The bill would stop the practice of making payments to settle these cases on behalf of members of Congress.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cTaxpayers should not be paying to settle these cases, just because the accused happens to be a member of Congress,\u201d Rep. Love said.\u00a0 \u201cIf someone behaves badly, the consequences to those actions are that person\u2019s responsibility, and no one else\u2019s.\u201d\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0Currently, claims are settled within Congress for a variety of workplace violations.\u00a0 The STOP Act prohibits payment in claims involving sexual harassment by members of Congress.\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=294439DE-ABF3-4AF9-A289-AB9C4CAF7F98", "Judges and Religious Liberty", "2017-12-01", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "by Senator Orrin Hatch\r\n[LINK]\r\nWhen it comes to debates over jurisprudence, the dividing lines can prove very real. Even when we transcend the typical political fault lines \u2014 even when we move to the substance that exists beyond the tired and boilerplate talking points \u2014 questions of judicial philosophy tend to divide. Those on the Right, generally speaking, emphasize the importance of the rule of law and the protection of liberty inherent in abiding by its strictures. Those on the Left commonly stress the need for flexible judicial methods, with an eye toward outcomes sensitive to the times and what the times require.\r\nAnd yet, for all of our differences, the principles on which we agree are important and numerous. Certain basic principles, certain fundamental tenets, are shared across the divide. Though the terms of implementation tend to be controversial, we all agree that Due Process, for instance, is a worthy end in and of itself. Ours is a system that holds government to a high bar before it molests or penalizes its citizens. We all agree that First Amendment liberties are a prized element of the constitutional order. Ours is a system which errs on the side of free speech, and free assembly, and free press. Such a common devotion to common principles is what keeps us grounded; it\u2019s what keeps the system \u2014 for all its divisions \u2014 from fraying entirely.\r\nThat is why I, along with so many others, find the recent trends in religious liberty so concerning. What was once considered a commonly espoused and honored cornerstone of our system has become, increasingly, a touchstone in the divide between Right and Left. It\u2019s a dangerous development.\r\nReligious liberty was, in several critical ways, the first freedom of our system. Its explicit protection is the first injunction commanded by the First Amendment. Ingrained deeply in our culture and in our institutions, its expression has proven central to the national character. Our Constitution allows no establishment of religion, and permits no undue restraint upon its exercise, such that our citizens may make their own determinations on matters of conscience.\r\nThis basic principle used to be widely shared. It used to be one of the few matters that spanned the divide. Following the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Employment Division v. Smith, I was a principal author of the\u00a0Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That bill passed unanimously in the House of Representatives, and nearly unanimously in the Senate. For all of our divisions, for all of our disagreements, we all managed to find common ground in defense of religious liberty.\r\nAnd yet today, where do we find ourselves? In\u00a0a recent judicial confirmation hearing, a nominee was asked, explicitly, \u201cdo you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?\u201d That same nominee was told that, upon review of her record, \u201cthe conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.\u201d Statements like that can be taken only as the imposition of some kind of religious test for holding office. Nothing could be more repugnant to our values of religious freedom and liberty.\r\nThe Supreme Court, in\u00a0Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, recently rebuked the State of Missouri for relying on old statutory and constitutional vestiges of anti-Catholic bigotry to deny religious schools the same public aid as afforded to non-religious institutions. The state had denied those benefits for no reason other than affiliation with a religious institution.\r\nIn cases like\u00a0Trinity Lutheran\u00a0and controversies from\u00a0Hobby Lobby\u00a0to the\u00a0Zubik v. Burwell, there is a new pressure on those living and espousing their faith. And yet, unlike in the past, there is no longer a chorus of voices\u2014from both sides of the aisle\u2014standing up for religious liberty. There is no longer a broad, bipartisan agreement that religious rights are not to be tampered with, demeaned, overlooked, or casually brushed aside. More and more, religious liberty is treated as an afterthought to those making policy and as an inconvenience to those carrying it out. More and more, it proves a quick rhetorical box to check before moving on to matters deemed more important.\r\nThis country\u2019s protection of religious liberty \u2014 unique in the world and through most of history \u2014 is too rare, and was won upon the sacrifice of too many, to be quietly disregarded for falling out of the popularity of the times. I, for one, plan to keep speaking to this issue.\r\nIn 2015,\u00a0I delivered a series of eight speeches\u00a0on the Senate floor about the importance of religious liberty. My message then was the same as my message today: Religious liberty is a bedrock principle of the American political order. Its protection is of the highest order and the greatest priority. It is not merely one of many values, to be weighed against other competing social and political goals, and discarded when inconvenient.\r\nNearly all of my Senate colleagues at one time agreed on the preeminence of religious liberty among our constitutional freedoms. We should all hope that we get back to that point again.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=A30864A2-599F-4050-98A6-A07394F43A81", "Sens. Rubio, Lee Reaffirm Commitment to Child Tax Credit Expansion", "2017-12-01", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL.) and Mike Lee (R-UT) today reaffirmed their commitment to expanding access to the child tax credit in the Senate tax reform bill. \u201cOur amendment would make a small change in this bill, but a huge difference in the lives of working families,\u201d Senator Lee said. \"We need pro-growth and pro-worker tax reform, and that\u2019s what this amendment aims to do by allowing working families to keep more of their own hard-earned money,\u201d Senator Rubio said. Both senators added: \u201cCurrently, our amendment would offset the additional middle class relief with a slight increase in the corporate tax rate. We support that pay-for and believe it gives our amendment a good chance to pass on the floor with bipartisan support. But as we have said all along, we are open to alternative offsets that would preserve the 20% corporate rate, which we support as much as our Republican colleagues. We continue to welcome any effort by Finance Committee members and Republican leaders to help us identify other pay-fors to offset an expansion of the child credit.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=726146E2-8690-4D7F-9812-A78C98DF1EF2", "Hatch: Im thrilled the President has accepted my invitation to come to Utah on Monday.", "2017-11-30", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\u201cI believe the outcome he is planning to announce on public lands strikes an excellent balance where everyone wins.\u201d\r\nWashington, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, spoke on video today about the President\u2019s upcoming visit to Utah on Monday. Senator Hatch has worked assiduously to arrange the President\u2019s visit over the last several months, including a meeting with leaders of the LDS Church and an opportunity to discuss the future of our national monuments.\r\nPresident Trump credited Hatch for his decision to make a new monument proclamation during a phone call last month in which the President said, \u201cI\u2019m approving the Bears Ears recommendation for you, Orrin.\u201d\r\n\r\n\r\nOn video, Hatch said:\r\nI\u2019m thrilled the President has accepted my invitation to come to the great state of Utah on Monday.\r\nI\u2019ve arranged for President Trump to meet with leaders from the LDS Church at Welfare Square, which is one of the greatest symbols of Utahn\u2019s service, perseverance, and self-reliance.\r\nHe\u2019ll also be discussing public lands, and the future of our national monuments. I believe the outcome he is planning to announce strikes an excellent balance where everyone wins. I look forward to showing the President our great state next week.\r\nOn the President\u2019s upcoming proclamation concerning the future of Utah\u2019s monuments, Hatch said:\r\nThe details of the President\u2019s announcement are his and his alone to make, but I appreciate his willingness to listen to my advice and even more importantly, to give the people of Utah a voice in this process. I believe his proclamation, following Secretary Zinke\u2019s fair, thorough, and inclusive review, will represent a balanced solution and a win for everyone on all sides of this issue.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-and-bonamici-introduce-the-victims-voice-and-transparency-act", "Stewart and Bonamici Introduce the Victims Voice and Transparency Act", "2017-11-29", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2013 Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon) introduced the Victims\u2019 Voice and Transparency Act. This legislation allows victims of sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill to release the names of the accused and the settlement payment amounts, if they so choose.\nCurrently, victims are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement as part of the settlement process through the Office of Compliance. This legislation would remove this requirement, giving the victim the option to speak.\u00a0\n\u201cVictims of sexual misconduct deserve a voice and the American people deserve the utmost level of transparency,\u201d Stewart said. \u201cI have been disheartened to see the frequency of sexual harassment and assault incidents in the news. This culture of silence is unacceptable. We must continue shedding light on this issue so victims can be heard.\u201d\n\u201cI\u2019m proud to introduce bipartisan legislation that will lift the secrecy surrounding taxpayer-funded sexual harassment settlements, and give victims the right to talk about their experiences publicly,\u201d Bonamici said. \u201cThe current requirement that victims enter into nondisclosure agreements creates a dangerous culture of secrecy and silence. Victims should not be required to sign away their rights in exchange for justice. The American people deserve a transparent government and they should know about the actions of their elected representatives.\u201d\nThe Office of Compliance oversees the House of Representatives, the Senate, Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, the Office of the Congressional Accessibility Services, and also includes employees working in district or state offices as well as those in Washington, DC.\nFor a PDF copy of the bill, click 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=466FD61E-1971-4B10-9B05-7D2C21C2FBFB", "Sens. Lee and Rubio to Introduce Child Tax Credit Refundability Amendment", "2017-11-29", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) will introduce an amendment to the Senate tax bill that would give working American families a far larger share of tax relief than the existing bill currently does. Senators Rubio and Lee explained: \u201cWe have a chance to do better by working families in this tax bill. Right now, 70 percent of the tax cuts we\u2019re considering would go to businesses, and only 30 percent to individuals. This amendment would level the playing field for families, while still kick-starting national investment and growth. By increasing access to the Child Tax Credit, we can increase working family fairness and deliver overdue relief to America\u2019s greatest investor class: our moms and dads.\u201d Specifically the Rubio-Lee amendment would: \u00b7 Make the Child Tax Credit refundable up to payroll tax liability (15.3 percent of earnings).  \u00b7 Fix the marriage penalty by reducing the income phaseout threshold for the Child Tax Credit to $250,000 for all non-married filing jointly filers.  \u00b7 Index the Child Tax Credit to chained CPI in accordance with other individual-side provisions.  \u00b7 Increase the corporate income tax rate to 22 percent, to fully pay for the above changes.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=27B69473-C318-44FE-A0F7-C95764FF7B56", "November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Summit County", "2017-11-28", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Henefer  When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 2:30 PM  4:00 PM  Where: Henefer Town Hall, 150 W Center Street, Henefer, UT 84033", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=4A08DC97-B2D4-4D83-A0A1-00C1EF9DE668", "November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Box Elder County", "2017-11-28", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Perry  When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 9:00 AM  10:30 AM  Where: Perry City Office, 3005 S 1200 W, Perry, UT 84302", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=794A77CA-97E7-4150-965D-03B9B74ADAB1", "November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Weber County", "2017-11-28", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Roy  When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 11:00 AM \u2013 12:30 PM  Where: Roy City Offices, 5051 S 1900 W, Roy, UT 84067 (Conference Room)", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C4CCD7BF-F8B9-4958-80D5-C34D6485175A", "Sen. Lee Statement on MacManus Nomination", "2017-11-28", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement today regarding the nomination of Joseph MacManus to be the US Ambassador to Colombia: \"I was extremely disappointed to learn that Joseph MacManus has been nominated to become the United States ambassador to Colombia,\u201d Sen. Lee said. \"At a time when we should be cleaning up the State Department and realigning our foreign-policy priorities to reflect those of the current administration, an Obama-era diplomat is not the right person to head our embassy in Colombia, a critical U.S. ally in the region.\u201d President Trump announced the nomination last Tuesday, November 21.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=CE4D80DB-256F-4A95-A402-6BDD14937274", "Sen. Lee Statement on CFPB Leadership", "2017-11-27", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement today regarding the current leadership dispute at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau:\r\n\"While created with the best of intentions, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a poorly designed, unaccountable, and ultimately unconstitutional agency. This latest controversy isn\u2019t about President Trump or consumer protection. It is about the protection of individual liberty embedded into the United States Constitution through the separation of powers. The duly elected President of the United States has chosen Mick Mulvaney to be the Acting Director of the CFPB and anyone else who claims they have that title is acting illegally.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=781F1430-9F0A-40D6-B81F-7122FD0B281B", "Sen. Orrin Hatch: The special relationship between the UK and America makes the world a safer place", "2017-11-24", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "By Senator Orrin G. Hatch\r\n\"Your problems will be our problems, and when you look for friends, we shall be there.\" I thought about this promise made by Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan during my official visit to London this week. The United States and the United Kingdom share a powerful alliance that is unique among nations. In my meetings with Prime Minister May, senior leaders of government, and English clergy, we discussed the need to strengthen this alliance to meet the challenges of an increasingly chaotic world.\r\nIt is this friendship, this \u201cspecial relationship,\u201d that was the center of my conversation with Prime Minister Theresa May. Our special relationship with the United Kingdom is built on a foundation of shared values. The Prime Minister outlined these values best when she introduced herself to President Trump earlier this year as \u201ca fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party\u2026. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism\u2014and putting power in the hands of the people.\u201d\r\nPrime Minister May and I agreed that these very principles\u2014of working hard to empower the people and to leave the world a better place\u2014should guide our efforts in the fight against terrorism.\u00a0 Addressing the threat of homegrown radicalization by jihadist groups requires an approach that protects our citizens\u2019 safety just as it does their liberties. That\u2019s why MI5 Director General Andrew Parker and I agreed on the importance of creating a clear legal framework to facilitate the sharing of electronic data between our two countries.\u00a0\r\nIn coordination with UK officials, I am finalizing data-sharing legislation that would protect the rights of citizens while also giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. It is this type of close collaboration, driven by shared principles and shared objectives, that exemplifies the unique ability of our two countries to build a more secure and prosperous world.\r\nFor many years, the United Kingdom and the United States have worked closely to fight terrorist groups overseas, ISIS being foremost among such groups. Ultimately, victory over ISIS will come with the revival of human rights, democratic principles, and freedom in the Middle East. But this revival won\u2019t happen on its own; we must speed it along by taking President Reagan\u2019s approach: to use \u201ca humanitarian velvet glove backed by a steel fist of military force.\u201d This approach will help us win freedom for the people of Syria and Iraq. And make no mistake: these people desperately need our help.\r\nIn my conversation with the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt. Revd. Christopher Chessun,\u00a0I learned of the horrific violence perpetrated against Christians in Syria and the desecration of ancient heritage sites. Throughout his many travels to the region, Bishop Chessun has been a strong advocate on behalf of Syria\u2019s victimized communities. By partnering with UK government officials and ecclesiastical leaders, we can build alliances at all levels of society to protect the most vulnerable.\r\nThe experiences of marginalized communities such as Christians in Syria remind us that the struggle for human freedom is ongoing\u2014and the need to promote individual liberty is more urgent today than ever before.\u00a0\r\nThat\u2019s why I emphasized the importance of defending democracy in a special address I delivered to the students of Oxford University. The university invited me to speak in commemoration of President Reagan\u2019s historic address to the Oxford Union twenty-five years ago. In my remarks, I reminded the audience that from the same podium, President Reagan had announced the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, an initiative I am proud to have championed in Congress. The NED\u2019s role is as important as ever in promoting peace, order, and security in troubled regions across the world. As President Reagan said, \u201cthe only cure for what ails democracy is more democracy.\u201d\r\nJust as in Reagan\u2019s time, our world is witness to evil ideologies that threaten the lives and liberty of innocent civilians. But the historic friendship between the United Kingdom and the United States\u2014and our commitment to shared values\u2013will ensure that the cause of freedom will prevail.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=737", "Rep. Love Statement on Temporary Protected Status Expiration", "2017-11-21", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\"I disagree with the Trump administration's decision to terminate TPS protections for Haiti in July 2019. I saw the conditions in that country myself, and witnessed the struggle for the people who are still living in desperate situations. I have spoken with the country's\u00a0\u00a0leaders, and it's clear to me that the nation will not be prepared to support this population in the coming months.\"\r\n\r\n\t\"I look forward to continuing the work with my colleagues across the aisle to protect these people through a fair and orderly process.\u00a0\u00a0I recently cosponsored the ASPIRE Act (H.R. 4384) to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation or other proposals that offer appropriate protections.\"\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=F6810E88-7DFD-48CD-A6C5-47DE696EAD4D", "At Oxford Student Union, Hatch Speaks on Ronald Reagans Enduring Vision", "2017-11-21", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "LONDON\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, delivered the following remarks at the Oxford Student Union on November 21, 2017:\u00a0\r\nIt\u2019s great to be back in the United Kingdom. You know, when I told my youngest granddaughter I was coming, she got so excited. She loves rock and roll history, especially the Beatles. So when she asked what I remembered about the British Invasion, I told her everything. I told her about the media frenzy, the screaming crowds, and the public panic that ensued when the British beat us back at the Battle of Bunker Hill. And I told her how relieved we all were when the King\u2019s troops got back on their ships and sailed back to England.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThe Revolutionary War was an awkward time for US-UK relations. But hopefully my being here is a sign that we\u2019ve put our differences behind us.\u00a0\r\n\u00a0\r\nNow for the record, like my granddaughter, I am a huge Beatles fan. And I\u2019ll never forget the audience\u2019s reaction when they played their first set in America: hundreds of women crying hysterically, screaming at the top of their lungs, and fainting en masse. I find that I usually have the same effect on people.\r\n\u00a0\r\nYou think I\u2019m joking, but I\u2019m not. In the hundreds of speeches I\u2019ve given over the years, I\u2019ve made plenty of people faint. Some have even died of their boredom. When audience members start falling to the floor, that\u2019s usually my sign that it\u2019s time to wrap up.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIn seriousness, it\u2019s a privilege to be here. Twenty-five years ago Ronald Reagan stood before this very body and said that of the many honors he\u2019d received in his life, few could match the experience of standing at this podium, speaking to this distinguished audience.\r\n\r\n\r\nI feel the same way standing before you today. Who would ever have thought that this son of a metal lather, who was born in poverty in a Pennsylvania steel town, would one day have the opportunity to speak in this celebrated hall\u2014a place where kings and prime ministers, captains of industry and cultural icons have contested the great issues of their time.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI can just imagine Disraeli and Gladstone duking it out right here in this very room. In fact, I don\u2019t have to imagine it. I saw it last time I was here.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI\u2019m doubly honored to be here today to mark the 25th anniversary of President Reagan\u2019s address to this body and to share some remarks in his memory.\r\n\u00a0\r\nTo many of you, I expect\u2014perhaps to most of you\u2014Ronald Reagan is a figure you read about in books. Many of you likely have no memory of his presidency. Many of you probably were not even alive during it.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBut to me, Ronald Reagan is more than a historical figure. He was a dear friend, and an ally in some of my earliest political battles.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIndeed, Ronald Reagan played an important role in my very first run for the Senate.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI remember well the day in March 1976 when my wife and I gathered around our television set to watch the future President deliver an address entitled To Restore America. Reagan was then a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, running against Gerald Ford. In that speech, Reagan sounded a number of themes that later became hallmarks of his presidency. He talked about how he felt America had a divine purpose, a rendezvous with destiny, and how the American spirit unleashed was one of the greatest forces for good our world had ever known.\r\n\r\n\r\nReagan\u2019s words inspired me. They electrified me. In part because of his stirring message that night, six weeks later I filed papers to run for the U.S. Senate.\r\n\u00a0\r\nReagan\u2019s role in my race wasn\u2019t over. Following a closely fought nominating convention, I faced a tight primary race against a well-known, well-connected opponent. I was the outsider in the race. People accused me of being a carpetbagger\u2014a fake Utahn\u2014because I was not born in the state.\r\n\u00a0\r\nOn the eve of the primary election, and with the polls still close, Ronald Reagan endorsed me. I\u2019ve been told it was his first, and only, primary endorsement ever. Reagan\u2019s endorsement provided an extra surge of energy to my campaign, and with that support, I went on to win the primary and the general election as well.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI\u2019ll always be grateful for the inspiration and the support Ronald Reagan provided me in that first campaign, back when I was a political novice, a political nobody. The telegram with his endorsement\u2014yes, we still used telegrams in those days\u2014hangs in my office. It\u2019s one of my favorite mementos, and a reminder of the signal role Ronald Reagan played in my life.\r\n\u00a0\r\nYou know, Reagan and I actually shared a lot in common. Yes, we were both conservatives. And yes, we were both movie stars. Or often mistaken for movie stars.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBut there was also more.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWe both started off as Democrats, for one thing. He, a Hollywood liberal. I, a blue-collar tradesman. We both idolized Franklin Roosevelt but later became disaffected with a Democratic Party that seemed to believe that government was the answer to all of life\u2019s ills and that seemed embarrassed about America\u2019s role in the world.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWe both came from humble circumstances but found success through grit, determination, and a belief in hard work. I like to think our backgrounds helped us connect with everyday Americans who didn\u2019t enjoy privileged childhoods or fancy schools.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNot that there\u2019s anything wrong with fancy schools, of course. They tend to have excellent judgment in selecting speakers, for example.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBut our experiences coming up from humble circumstances, I think, helped us understand the challenges so many people face just to put food on the table and a roof over their head. It also gave us a great love for America, because we knew firsthand that in America, one\u2019s beginnings don\u2019t have to determine one\u2019s future.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNow, up to this point I\u2019ve focused on my own experience with Ronald Reagan. But I\u2019m far from the only person whose life he affected. Indeed, it\u2019s difficult to overstate the impact Ronald Reagan had on my country, and on the world as a whole.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThree decades removed from his presidency, I think we take much of what he accomplished for granted. For many or most in this room, communism has always been dead, America has always been the global economic leader, and our best days have always appeared to lie ahead.\r\n\r\nBut when Ronald Reagan took office, none of that was a given.\r\n\u00a0\r\nStart with communism. The Cold War may seem like a distant relic at this point, but I assure you, it was a very real struggle with very real consequences for all of us. And I say all of us because that includes those here today who had not yet been born.\r\n\u00a0\r\nArrayed against the values of freedom, liberty, and individual choice was an ideology that exalted centralized control, stamped out personal freedom, and sent millions of men, women, and children to early graves.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI know it\u2019s fashionable these days to want to rewrite history and to challenge established views. But I tell you, as sure as I stand before you today, that communism was evil. It was a plague on our planet. A triumphant Soviet Union would have meant the end of individual liberty as we knew it in the West. It would have meant the end of freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of the press. Even a draw in the Cold War would have meant decades of continuing geopolitical uncertainty and an ever-present danger of nuclear war.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWhen Reagan took office in 1980, communism was on the upswing and American power was in retreat. The USSR had recently invaded Afghanistan and was strengthening its grip over Eastern Europe. There was good reason to think the Soviet Bloc would persist well into the next century and beyond.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAnd it wasn\u2019t just the Soviets. The year prior, America had been humiliated when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. There followed a disastrous failed rescue mission that seemed only to underscore American impotence.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAmerica was in retreat economically as well. Unemployment was high, GDP was stagnant, and double-digit inflation had become a way of life. The word that came to define this era, coined following a pessimistic speech in which President Carter told Americans to turn down their thermostats and stop driving as much, was malaise.\r\n\u00a0\r\nRonald Reagan would have none of this. Always an optimist, he told Americans that their best days were in front of them. He said the present gloom was a passing spell, the result of failed leadership and an overreliance on Washington bureaucracy.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAs president, he sounded many of the same themes that had inspired my run for the Senate. He spoke of the American spirit and American ingenuity. He described our country as a choice land\u2014a shining city on a hill\u2014with a mission and an obligation to safeguard liberty from statist oppressors. And he saw communism for what it was: an evil, godless regime that claims to empower the many but instead exalts the few at the cost of great suffering and degradation.\r\n\r\nPresident Reagan reoriented American economic policy away from the high-tax, high-spending fiasco of previous administrations and toward a cleaner, simpler, fairer approach. He cut taxes, worked to slash Washington bureaucracy, and all the while told the American people that it was them, not the government, that was the true engine of economic growth.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAnd the results spoke for themselves. Inflation fell from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 3.2 percent in 1983. By 1986, four years after the Reagan tax cuts passed, economic growth had increased by 18 percent. And when President Reagan left office in 1988, more than 18 million new jobs had been created.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIn foreign policy, President Reagan stood up to communism and revealed it to be a fundamentally failed and false ideology. He rebuilt American power and might at a rate the Soviets simply could not match. Pilloried as a warmonger by holier-than-thou leftists, he showed that peace through strength is not an oxymoron, but rather a winning strategy against hollow strongmen. America\u2019s free market economy, which Reagan helped unleash, proved far stronger than Soviet Russia\u2019s top-down command economy, which was neither nimble nor robust enough to keep pace with Reagan\u2019s reforms. And so, while America flourished, communism collapsed.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThrough these and other successes, Ronald Reagan showed Americans that conservatism works. He showed Americans that the answer to every problem isn\u2019t more government. To the contrary, he showed that the answer is frequently less government. Unencumbered by sclerotic and often misguided government mandates, the American spirit and American work ethic can produce untold prosperity and growth.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAnd what\u2019s true of America is no less true of any place else on earth. There is nothing uniquely American about the drive to succeed, or to innovate, or to invent. Business acumen is not limited to one population or one culture. All people have within them the desire to better themselves and to provide a more fulfilling life for their posterity.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAnd so, the lessons of Ronald Reagan\u2019s presidency are universal. Reducing unnecessary central power emboldens private initiative. The people, left to their own devices, will act in ways more likely to spur economic growth than will overstuffed government bureaucrats told to come up with some grand design. And efforts to constrain the human spirit, though they may appear to succeed for a time, will always be doomed to failure, because the human spirit is irrepressible and seeks always for freedom and opportunity.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIt\u2019s noteworthy that when President Reagan addressed this very body nearly three decades ago, it was here that he announced the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, an initiative I was closely involved with in Congress.\r\n\u00a0\r\nDemocracy, and faith in the human spirit, is more relevant today than ever before. In the Middle East, the protection of religious minorities and the promotion of democracy is a matter of particular urgency. As we progress in the military fight against ISIS, the final blow to its evil ideology will emerge as we help ensure the prosperity of local communities, the protection of individual rights, and the promotion of democratic principles. As President Reagan said, the only cure for what ails democracy is more democracy.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNow, I can\u2019t share my memories of Reagan without also offering some thoughts on the current state of the Republican Party.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNo doubt the vast majority of the coverage you all see in the news media on the Republican Party is negative. The narrative, which I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve all heard many times and probably internalized, is that the Republican Party is a dying party\u2014a collection of old white men who, as President Obama once put it, cling to their guns and their religion, who are scared of change, and who will soon be dead, anyway.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNow, most of you are probably thinking I\u2019m not exactly the best messenger to rebut that narrative.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIn my defense, I\u2019m pretty sure I have at least a few years left in me. And I can tell you that this narrative that the Republican Party is dying is not only false, but illogical.\r\n\u00a0\r\nLet\u2019s reflect on this narrative for a moment. According to the narrative, \u201cThe Republican Party is dying. It will soon be dead.\u201d\r\n\u00a0\r\nCurious, then, that the party now holds the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. More curious still that the party holds two-thirds of state governor\u2019s offices and fifty-six percent of state legislature seats. The Republican Party has complete control of the state government\u2014meaning it holds the governor\u2019s office and both chambers of the state legislature\u2014in twenty-six states, a majority.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThe Democratic Party? Following elections earlier this month, it will have complete control in eight. That\u2019s not a joke.\r\n\u00a0\r\nSo you have twenty-six states with complete Republican control, and only eight with complete Democratic control. That\u2019s better than a three-to-one ratio. You tell me which party is dying.\r\n\r\nIndeed, this notion that the Republican Party is dying is based on two fallacies. First, that political alignment is static. Second, that past results determine future performance.\r\n\u00a0\r\nLet\u2019s take the first fallacy, that political alignment is static. You may have heard of an influential 2002 book called The Emerging Democratic Majority. This book, which was published early in George W. Bush\u2019s presidency, examined demographic data and voting patterns and concluded that Democrats were on the cusp of an enduring majority.\r\n\u00a0\r\nSpecifically, the authors noted that, first, the proportion of white Americans was due to decline over the coming years and the proportion of minority racial groups due to increase. Second, the authors observed that members of minority racial groups tend to be more Democratic than whites. In simpler terms, whites tend to vote Republican, minorities tend to vote Democratic, and there are likely to be proportionally fewer white voters and proportionally more minority voters in the future.\r\n\u00a0\r\nFair enough. Indeed, the 2008 election of Barack Obama seemed to bear this thesis out.\r\nBut there\u2019s a problem with it. It doesn\u2019t account for changes in individual partisan alignment.\r\n\r\nMany voters, perhaps most, tend to pick a party early on and stick with it. But not all do. Some swing back and forth. Others leave the party of their youth as they realize the other party better matches their values. That\u2019s what happened to me. It\u2019s what happened to Ronald Reagan, too. It happens to a lot of people. And here\u2019s a dirty little secret: this change from one party to the other as people grow older\u2014it usually favors the Republicans.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWinston Churchill is reputed to have said if you\u2019re not a liberal when you\u2019re young, you have no heart, and if you\u2019re not a conservative when you\u2019re old, you have no brain. There\u2019s some truth to that, and I don\u2019t say that just because that\u2019s what happened to me.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWhen you look at polls across generations, you see that young people tend to hold more liberal views and older people more conservative ones. And this holds true across time. You see it in polls taken in 1970, in 1990, and in 2010. Given population turnover, that means there is a population of people\u2014a sizeable population\u2014that begin their voting life on the left side of the spectrum and gradually move to the right.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWhen you have some time, look up the backgrounds of prominent American conservatives. You\u2019ll be shocked how many cut their teeth on the 1972 George McGovern campaign.\r\n\u00a0\r\nMcGovern was probably the most liberal major-party nominee in American history. He lost in a landslide, to Richard Nixon of all people, because his views were so far out of the mainstream. But there sure are a lot of prominent conservatives who were McGovernites back in the day.\r\n\r\nAnd so the fallacy of The Emerging Democratic Majority was that voting patterns circa 2002 wouldn\u2019t change. College-educated whites would vote Republican, blue-collar whites would remain marginally Democratic, and minorities would remain overwhelmingly Democratic.\r\n\r\nDonald Trump\u2019s election blew that premise out of the water. In the 2016 election, college-educated whites\u2014long the backbone of the Republican Party\u2014voted for Hillary Clinton. Blue-collar whites, meanwhile, voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. And minority voters gave their support to Hillary Clinton, albeit in lower numbers than for Barack Obama.\r\n\r\nBetween 2002 and 2016, there was a seismic shift in the blue-collar vote. Long a core Democratic constituency, over the course of fourteen years, this enormous bloc of voters switched sides. The demographic changes predicted in 2002 may have borne out, but the voting patterns did not.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThe simple fact of the matter is that politics is a dynamic business. Party coalitions are constantly changing. The American South for a hundred years was the base of the Democratic Party. Now it\u2019s solidly Republican. The Republican Party was born in the Northeast. For decades Vermont was the most Republican state in the nation. Now the Democratic Party is ascendant in the Northeast and Vermont is a Democratic bastion.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThough it does have a Republican governor. Not all hope is lost!\r\n\u00a0\r\nThe purpose of a political party is to win. If a party goes long enough in a dry spell, it will adapt to better match the electorate. That\u2019s why there are no permanent majorities in politics, and why the claim that one party is destined for eternal success while the other is doomed to permanent defeat is foolishness.\r\n\u00a0\r\nYes, older people in America tend to be more Republican right now and younger people more Democratic. But that\u2019s often been the case in my country\u2019s history, and it hasn\u2019t doomed the Republican Party yet. Yes, white voters tend to be more Republican right now and minority voters more Democratic. But that may not always be the case. And more importantly, even if present alignments remain relatively stable demographically speaking, shifts in voting patterns among subgroups\u2014even minor shifts\u2014can make a world of difference.\r\n\u00a0\r\nRemember the blue-collar vote, which I mentioned earlier. Donald Trump\u2019s genius\u2014I recognize that\u2019s not a word you often hear associated with him in the media, though in many things he is a genius\u2014was his ability to tap into the blue-collar vote in a way that no Republican had since, well, Ronald Reagan.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAccording to one statistical analysis, eight-and-a-half million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 pulled the lever for Donald Trump. That contrasts with only two-and-a-half million Romney voters who switched to Clinton. And if you dig into the data, what you find is that a whole lot of those eight-and-a-half million Obama-Trump voters were blue-collar workers.\r\n\u00a0\r\nSo don\u2019t let the Democratic boosters in the media trick you into thinking present demographics mean the Republican Party is on the path to oblivion. As long as there are Republican candidates able to tap into voters previously aligned with the other party, the GOP will be just fine. And I have every confidence there will be plenty such candidates in the future. That\u2019s what we politicians do: we work to win votes.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI\u2019ve already gone on at some length here, so let me just briefly mention the second fallacy behind the claim that the Republican Party is dying, namely, that past results determine future performance.\r\n\u00a0\r\nMany who argue\u2014or who argued prior to the 2016 election\u2014that the Republican Party is doomed used Barack Obama\u2019s election as their baseline. They assumed that because President Obama did however well with such-and-such groups, the next Democratic nominee would as well.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBut every Democrat is not Barack Obama. President Obama was a singular political talent, a once-in-a-generation orator, if you ask me.\r\n\u00a0\r\nOne thing the 2016 election revealed was that Hillary Clinton, for all her strengths\u2014and I do think she has many\u2014does not have President Obama\u2019s natural political talents. She is a hard worker and a tough, dedicated advocate, but I think most of us would agree she does not have the ability to thrill a crowd the same way Barack Obama does.\r\n\u00a0\r\nAnd so the fact that President Obama had a certain level of success with certain voters did not mean Hillary Clinton was destined to have that same level of success. Look at Reagan. He won 49 states in 1984. That didn\u2019t portend a permanent Republican majority any more than President Obama\u2019s 2012 election foreshadowed a permanent Democratic one.\r\n\u00a0\r\nIt\u2019s easy to get caught up in the moment and to think that what\u2019s true now in politics will always be true in the future. But those of us with longer experience know that what\u2019s true now in politics is almost never true in the future. You\u2019re lucky to predict what the political climate is going to be like a month from now, let alone a year, or a decade. What would have happened if two-and-a-half years ago I had stood here and told you the next President of the United States would be Donald Trump? You would have laughed me out of the room.\r\n\u00a0\r\nTo succeed in politics, you always need to have the future in mind. It can\u2019t just be about the present. You need to have a vision: What will people need in the future? What will they want? How can I speak to their future aspirations?\r\n\u00a0\r\nRonald Reagan understood this better than anyone. When he spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, he hearkened back to America\u2019s Founding and the words of our Pilgrim forebears. But he also touched on our hopes for the future. Yes, America has been a shining city on a hill to prior generations, a proponent of democracy and freedom, however imperfect our application of those principles may have been. But America also aspires to be that shining city on a hill. Americans want our country to lead. They want to set an example of liberty and equality. Ronald Reagan tapped into these innate yearnings within the American character, and in so doing, led his country back to confidence and prosperity.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI, for one, have great confidence in the future of my country and the future of the Republican Party. Right now is a rather interesting time in American politics. Much of what we thought we knew now seems upside-down.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBut the only constant in politics is change. The Republican Party will continue to adapt, as will the Democratic Party. And the leaders who will win the future will be those who are able to tap into the American spirit and speak to our future aspirations.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThat\u2019s what Ronald Reagan did. That\u2019s what our greatest leaders have always done. And that, in my view, is the measure of a successful president.\r\n\u00a0\r\nThank you again for your kind invitation.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=4515C9A5-380D-428B-9B67-82EAF28ADD8F", "In London Visit, Hatch Meets with Prime Minister Theresa May, MI5, Religious Leaders", "2017-11-21", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "LONDON\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, traveled to London this week to meet with top officials to discuss a number of important issues, including national security, trade, religious liberty, and our critical \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with the United Kingdom. He also delivered an address before the Oxford Student Union on\u00a0\u201cRonald Reagan\u2019s Enduring Vision.\u201d (full video of Senator Hatch\u2019s speech at the Oxford Union will be available later, the text can be found here.)\r\n\r\n\r\nSenator Hatch was invited to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May and National Security Advisor Mark Sedwill to discuss national security, trade, and international human rights, among other things.\r\n\r\nSenator Hatch also met with MI5 Director General Andrew Parker to discuss homeland security issues, primarily combatting terror and homegrown radicalization. MI5 is the UK\u2019s domestic counterintelligence and security agency.\r\n\r\nSenator Hatch likewise met with the Rt. Revd. Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark to discuss religious liberty, particularly the situation of religious minorities in the Middle East. Bishop Christopher has visited Iraq and Syria in recent years and is an authority on the issue of protecting religious minorities.\r\n\r\nVideo of Senator Hatch\u2019s address to the Oxford Union will be made available at a later time, but the text 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=1A0302D5-43A9-44EE-82B4-26355A80FD8B", "Hatch Statement on DOJ lawsuit to block AT&T-Time Warner Merger", "2017-11-20", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement following the announcement that the Department of Justice would be filing a lawsuit to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger:\r\nToday brings momentous news in the antitrust space. As I have stressed previously on the floor of the Senate, antitrust law is poised to take center stage in the years to come, and officials of both parties need to start paying attention. I am not prepared to comment, in any detail, on the merits of this case. Only those involved are familiar with the full record; everyone else is set to learn a lot more in the days and weeks to come.\r\n\u00a0\r\nWhat I can unequivocally say, however, is that I am proud of Makan Delrahim. Throughout an unnecessarily protracted confirmation debate, there were voices suggesting he wasn\u2019t disinterested enough, independent enough, or open-minded enough, to make the tough calls that the Antitrust Division requires. Today, those in doubt learned otherwise.\r\n\u00a0\r\nI plan to take a close look at the facts and arguments made in this suit. In the meantime, allow me to reiterate that sound and vigorous antitrust enforcement is not merely another form of government overreach. It is, rather, our last and best hope for staving off the kind of command-and-control regulation antithetical to the free enterprise system. With sound antitrust enforcement, the market \u2013 rather than the government bureaucrat \u2013 disciplines our businesses into offering lower prices, greater quality, and enhanced innovation.\r\n\u00a0\r\nNow is the time to get serious about antitrust, and to get serious about getting it right. We don\u2019t have the room \u2013 and with the rate of change these days, we don\u2019t have the time \u2013 for the same-old partisan name-calling and economic sophistry. I look forward to the debate this suit is sure to spur.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=01693298-08A5-4DA9-9BC8-BC1F610DE5E7", "NRA and Law Enforcement Groups Support Hatch Efforts to Protect Legal Gun Ownership by Fixing Background Check System", "2017-11-17", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY \u2013This week Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, co-sponsored the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, legislation addressing critical holes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. While the legislation does not expand background checks or infringe on any law-abiding American\u2019s legal right to own firearms, it works to prevent criminals like Devin Patrick Kelley, the shooter in the recent Sutherland Springs Tragedy, from taking advantage of holes in the background check system to obtain firearms.\r\nThe Fix NICS Act has received endorsements from the National Rifle Association of America, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Sheriffs Association.\r\nNRA: \u201cWe applaud this effort to ensure that the records of prohibited individuals are entered into NICS, while providing a relief valve for those who are wrongly included in the system.\u201d (Executive Director Chris Cox, National Rifle Association of America, 11/16/17)\r\nNational Coalition Against Domestic Violence: \u201cThe Fix NICS Act is a demonstration of Congressional unity, bringing together not only legislators from both sides of the aisle but also taking meaningful action supported by a diverse cross-section of individuals and organizations.\u201d (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17)\r\nFraternal Order of Police: \u201cTragically, recent events have showed us that Federal agencies and State governments have too often failed to upload all relevant information to the NICS, allowing the illegal sale of a firearm.\u00a0 This bill will address this issue in a comprehensive way.\u201d (Fraternal Order of Police, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17)\r\nNational Domestic Violence Hotline: \u201cThis bill will help save the lives of victims of domestic violence and the communities in which they live and worship, by ensuring that domestic violence records are entered properly and consistently into the background check system.\u201d (CEO Katie Ray Jones, National Domestic Violence Hotline, 11/16/17)\r\nNational Shooting Sports Foundation: \u201cThis legislation will fix NICS so that background checks are accurate and reliable.\u201d (National Shooting Sports Foundation, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/15/17)\r\nNational Network to End Domestic Violence: \u201cYour bipartisan bill would help to avert future tragedies\u2026 This legislation will save lives by keeping firearms out of the hands of people with a history of domestic abuse.\u201d National Network to End Domestic Violence, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17)\r\nNational Sheriff\u2019s Association: \u201cThis legislation is a bold step to ensure federal laws are adhered to and upheld.\u201d (Jonathan Thompson, National Sheriffs Association, 11/17/2017)", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=41F4AC2E-F2D6-48E1-8A64-70AB4F792673", "Hatch Statement on the New US Marshal for the District of Utah Nominee", "2017-11-17", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Dr. Matthew Harris to serve as the US Marshal for the District of Utah.\r\n\u201cWith the nomination of Dr. Matthew Harris to serve as the next US Marshal for the District of Utah, our state has reason to celebrate,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cDr. Harris is a superbly qualified nominee with nearly two decades of federal law enforcement experience. Not only does he have a proven record as an investigator; he has also distinguished himself as a senior manager in three different executive agencies. As a US Marshal, Dr. Harris will apply the lessons learned over a lifetime in law enforcement to prosecute dangerous criminals and keep our communities safe.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=A74240F7-5A33-4DEC-86CE-46CCC2125FBE", "The USA Liberty Act", "2017-11-17", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was signed into law in 1978 to curtail the relatively unbridled surveillance power the executive had possessed since President Franklin Roosevelt. The intent of the act was to limit the government\u2019s ability to spy on Americans abroad and all people at home. Despite their good intentions, the authors of the bill included one provision that accomplished just the opposite. Section 702 of FISA has allowed the government to collect vast amounts of information from the Internet and other technological platforms, effectively undermining the law\u2019s original intent of protecting civil liberties. Government agencies have exploited this provision to expand their spying powers. The tech trails and geotracking used by government agencies today would have seemed like the stuff of science fiction in 1978, while PRISM would have seemed like something out of 1984.  We\u2019ve made progress in rolling back some of these abuses\u2014for example, by passing the USA Freedom Act in 2015\u2014but we still have a way to go. That is why I am pleased that the USA Liberty Act passed out of the House Judiciary Committee last week. The USA Liberty Act would create a new framework of protections and transparency requirements to ensure that the government uses its surveillance powers without abusing citizens\u2019 constitutional rights to privacy and due process. This bill would define more strictly what information can and cannot be collected by the government, whether incidentally or intentionally. It would end the collection of information that is bundled incidentally with more important information about a person or topic of interest. It also would implement higher accountability thresholds for heads of government agencies responsible for protecting civil liberties, whistleblower protections for federal employees and contractors, and privacy and due process safeguards for American citizens.  Today, Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) and I introduced a companion bill to the USA Liberty Act that includes all these protections. Our Senate bill also includes an amendment originally introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would close a \u201cback-door\u201d surveillance loophole by requiring domestic agencies such as the FBI to obtain a warrant before accessing any information about American citizens collected under Section 702. Fifty years after FISA\u2019s passage, we are still reconciling the need for public safety with constitutionally protected rights to privacy and due process. The USA Liberty Act would send a clear bipartisan message that our government must protect Americans\u2019 safety and constitutional rights\u2014not one or the other.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=84605D3E-55FE-466B-B284-EF49B3C34060", "November 17, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Wayne", "2017-11-17", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Torrey  When: Friday November 17th, 2017 @ 12:00 PM \u2013 1:00 PM  Where: Torrey DUP Building, 49 E Main Street, Torrey, UT 84775", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=3095F799-7550-4FAA-B361-AE71326B9FFE", "A Good Start for Utah Families", "2017-11-17", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Things are looking up for Utah families. This Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee released a revised version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This version included two key changes that make the bill much better for Utah families. First, the revised bill expanded the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 under current law to $2,000. This increase solved a potentially huge problem for working Utah families in tax reform. The original tax bill only increased the CTC to $1,650. It also eliminating the personal exemption, a tax provision that benefits many working families. This could have meant a tax hike for many Utah families, but by increasing the CTC to $2,000 the new bill avoided that mistake. According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four making $85,000 per year would get a $1,554 tax cut under the new Senate bill. And thanks to economic growth, the average middle-income Utah family would eventually see an extra $2,969 in after-tax income every year. The revised Senate bill also would repeal Obamacare\u2019s individual mandate, a provision that the Supreme Court ruled was a tax in 2012. By eliminating this tax penalty, millions of Americans families will no longer be punished for not purchasing expensive health insurance policies they do not want. Democrats claim that repealing the individual mandate would kick 13 million Americans off of their health insurance policies. But that claim could not be further from the truth, as a Washington Post fact check makes clear. It is true that five million Americans will choose not to enroll in Medicaid when they are not forced to do so by a government mandate. It also is true that an additional two million Americans will choose to decline employer-sponsored health care in return for higher wages. But these seven million people are all choosing to forego health care of their own accord. Nobody is depriving them of anything. If the individual mandate is repealed, another 5 million people who currently buy health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges will discontinue those policies. But many of those people would have gotten subsidies to cover the cost of Obamacare premiums. And those who do not qualify for premiums can buy unregulated health-care plans that better fit their needs. The corporate tax cut in the original version of the bill will be more good news for working families. Yes, some of that tax cut will go to the stockholders of corporate entities\u2014but a lot of that money will go instead to new jobs and higher wages. Economists disagree on the precise breakdown, but the consensus is that lost wages make up between one-quarter and one-half of corporate tax revenue. According to the Tax Foundation, the Senate tax plan would lead to a 3.7 percent increase in economic growth, 925,000 more jobs, and 4.4% higher after-tax income. As good as this bill is\u2014 and it is good\u2014it is not perfect. Many Utah families pay far more in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. As written, the current Senate bill would provide these families little relief. There is a solution to this shortcoming. If we make the Child Tax Credit refundable up to the amount that families pay in payroll taxes, then the credit would be far more beneficial to those families that most need extra cash in their pockets. The bill as written also reduces federal revenues by almost $1.5 trillion. By itself, this is not a problem: The federal government shouldn\u2019t be taking so much of our money! But if this tax cut is not followed by significant spending cuts, it will hand the next generation an unacceptable debt burden My colleagues have done a fantastic job on tax reform so far. If we can just make the Child Tax Credit refundable against payroll taxes\u2014and if we can then pledge to address our nation\u2019s spending addiction\u2014it will be a huge win for Utah families.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=736", "Rep. Love Applauds Passage of 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act'", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. -- \"My vote in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) is a vote for working Utahns who live in the 4th District.\u00a0 This is one of the rare cases where I can say Washington is truly working for people.\u00a0 The process is long and complex, but the hard work will be worth it for our 4th district neighbors who seek the American Dream.\u00a0 Our current tax code is gargantuan, complex, riddled with loopholes for lobbyists and kills American job creation. \u00a0 We\u2019re putting an end to that.\u00a0 We are simplifying the tax code, giving small business and individuals relief while keeping important elements like deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest and expanding the child tax credit.\u00a0 Most importantly, we are lowering the rates so that Utahns will truly feel the benefit of keeping more of their money.\u00a0 In spite of the demagoguery from those who oppose the bill, this isn\u2019t about Republicans or Democrats winning, it\u2019s about the American people winning.\"\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act", "Bishop Votes for \u201cTax Cuts and Jobs Act\u201d", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "robbishop.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON The US House of Representatives has voted to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement after his vote for the bill:\nUtahns deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. Each year, Utahns and other Americans spend billions of dollars complying with our needlessly complicated tax code. I voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it will save Utahns thousands of dollars each year. Furthermore, the bill contains numerous provisions that bring federal tax policy more in line with Utah values.\nBACKGROUND: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is estimated to raise the after-tax income of Utah families by $2,969. 71,033 taxpayers in Utahs 1st District claim the child tax credit. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases the child tax credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600. CLICK HERE for more on the impact of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on Utahs 1st District.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/tax-reform-passes-house", "Tax Reform Passes House", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2013 Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement after voting in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\n\u201cFor the first time in decades we are able to provide the American people with a dramatic new tax code that is simple and fair. Utahans deserve more jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks.\u201d\n\u201cAn average family of four living in Utah\u2019s 2nd Congressional District will receive a $1,445 tax cut. The majority are also going to be able to complete their taxes on a postcard sized tax form. The standard deduction is going to increase significantly, keeping more money in your pocket. The child tax credit will increase, providing you with more support for your family. Tax benefits are being preserved, helping you afford some of life\u2019s most important investments. All while you are enjoying the benefits of a strong and growing American economy.\u201d\n\u201cThis new tax code will change lives, energize our country, and get our economy thriving again. Once tax reform passes in the Senate, you are going to see a remarkable difference.\u201d\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=241A4285-FAC6-4AA5-BF48-40E845744198", "Finance Committee Passes Hatchs Historic Tax Proposal", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\u201cAfter months of hard work and nearly a week of robust deliberation on the merits of this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee acted tonight to advance the most comprehensive tax reform bill in a generation. This is a historic moment and one we should all be proud of.\u201d\r\nWASHINGTON \u2013 Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) released the following statement after advancing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act after a near week-long markup in the Senate Finance Committee:\r\n\u201cFrom the outset of this process, we sought to craft a strong pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family tax overhaul that will move America forward and modernize our nation\u2019s tax system to meet the challenges and opportunities of today. After months of hard work and\u00a0nearly a week of robust deliberation on the merits of this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee acted tonight to advance the most comprehensive tax reform bill in a generation. This is a historic moment and one we should all be proud of.\r\n\r\nVideo: Hatch Final Statement + Final Vote\r\n\u201cBy nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering tax rates, and doubling the child tax credit, we have made good on our promise to deliver a bill that will improve the lives of average Americans who have been hit by nearly a decade of sluggish economic growth. Bringing our outdated tax structure into the 21st century will help level the playing field for businesses \u2013 both small and large \u2013 and ensure we can keep more jobs and more investment here at home.\r\n\u201cThis is an initiative that focuses on building a better economy for American workers and a better future for generations to come. With this bill, we act to strengthen the middle class, reward hard-working taxpayers, and get our economy back on track. While we\u2019ve cleared a major hurdle tonight, there is still much work to be done and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this across the finish line.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn an exchange with another Senator, Hatch passionately rejected Democrats Talking Points that his tax proposal is solely intended to benefit the wealthy\r\nLeader McConnell praised Hatch and the Finance Committee\r\n\u201cFor the millions of hard-working Americans who need more money in their pockets and the chance of a better future, help is on the way.\u00a0 Building off of years of work, dozens of hearings and bipartisan proposals, the Senate Finance Committee has reported a bill that will bring lasting relief to middle-class families, small businesses and American workers.\u00a0 The committee, under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, considered hundreds of amendments, heard arguments from all sides and debated in an open and transparent manner.\u00a0 I commend my colleagues and the legislation they put forward.\r\n\u201cWhen the Senate returns after Thanksgiving, I will bring this must-pass legislation to the floor for further debate and open consideration.\u00a0 I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in supporting this legislation, because there is universal agreement that a tax overhaul, and taking more money out of Washington\u2019s pocket and putting more in the pockets of American families, is an economic imperative for our nation.\u00a0 It\u2019s needed to ensure our jobs and businesses aren\u2019t shipped overseas, that families have more to spend on their children, and that our future is one of prosperity.\u201d\r\nTo read Chairman Hatch\u2019s closing statement, click here.\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s modified mark, click here.\r\nA score of the modified mark may 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=9BA84DD8-EF37-4CEB-9507-CFA444AF5A01", "Hatch, Feinstein, Toomey Introduce Bill to Aid Child Pornography Victims", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)\u2014the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee\u2014\u00a0alongside Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), introduced the bipartisan\u00a0Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act, named for the victims in some of the world\u2019s most widely circulated child pornography series. This crucial legislation improves the process for seeking restitution from child pornography defendants. The bill also offers victims a monetary assistance alternative from the Crime Victim Fund, requires the appointment of a guardian to act on behalf of the victim in court, and allows victims access to the defendants\u2019 images depicting them.\u00a0\r\n\u201cChild pornography is different than other crimes in the way it continuously hurts victims,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cVictims of this insidious crime deserve assistance tailored to how often the offense imposes harm, especially when images are trafficked on the internet. The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act will provide meaningful assistance for victims to help them recover and reclaim their lives.\u201d\r\n\u201cThe sexual abuse and exploitation of children is one of the most heinous crimes and child-pornography victims are affected for the rest of their lives,\u201d\u00a0Feinstein said.\u00a0\u201cOur bill makes it easier for these victims to secure restitution from those that produce and traffic child pornography.\u201d\r\n\u201cChild pornography is a heinous crime with lifelong effects for its victims,\u201d\u00a0Toomey said.\u00a0\u201cCurrent federal law does not do enough to enable victims to recover restitution from criminals who produce and traffic child pornography. This bipartisan bill responds to these shortcomings by helping victims of child pornography obtain much needed restitution for the terrible harms that they have suffered.\u201d\r\nStatements of Support\r\nThe bill is named after victims depicted in some of the most widely circulated child pornography series in the world.\u00a0\r\nAmy wrote:\u00a0\u201cThank you Senator Hatch for not giving up. There are lots of important things going on in our country right now and I know that a bunch of abused kids aren\u2019t always at the top of the list. But you haven\u2019t given up and neither have we.\u201d\r\nVicky and her husband wrote:\u00a0\u201cThis bill is an important and needed step in the process of healing and making those who have harmed so many accountable for the damage done. We are thankful for the efforts of all who have brought this to this point and urge Congress to go the last mile to make this happen.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAndy, a Utah resident, wrote:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m lucky, and so is Vicky and Amy and so many other mostly silent victims out there, to have you on our side and everyone else in the Senate. Just knowing that so many important people think that we matter, that the terrible things that happened to us as kids are being considered all the way up in the Congress of the United States\u2026.If we can all agree on something, it\u2019s that victims deserve justice. Thank you for helping us get it.\u201d\r\nMeg Garvin, National Crime Victims Law Institute, Executive Director:\r\n\u201cThe Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2017 is\u2026critical to ensuring that victims do not carry the financial burden of their own victimization.\u201d\r\nBackground\r\nThe\u00a0Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act\u00a0includes the following provisions:\r\n \r\nA more relevant and predictable definition of \u201cfull amount of a victim\u2019s losses,\u201d including projected future and aggregate harm by all those whose activities contributed to harming the same victim.\r\nRestitution\u00a0\r\n\r\nFor child pornography production crimes, victims receive full amount of their total losses.\r\nFor child pornography trafficking (distribution and possession) crimes, victims receive from each defendant between a minimum of $3,000 and one percent of their total losses.\r\n\r\nCompensation\r\n\r\nChild pornography production victims may instead receive a single payment of $35,000 from a Child Pornography Victims Reserve (CPVR) within the federal Crime Victims Fund (CVF).\r\nJudges must appoint a guardian ad litem advocate for victims of child pornography production and their fees are capped at 10 percent of the victim\u2019s compensation.\r\nPerpetrators will be fined up to $17,000 for possession, up to $35,000 for distribution, and up to $50,000 for production crimes.\r\nThe CPVR will be capped at $10 million, and funds may be transferred from the CVF (current balance is more than nine billion dollars) if the assessments are insufficient.\r\n\r\nChild pornography victims will have the same access to the images depicting them as defendants already have; this is important for victim identification, forensic analysis, and treatment.\r\nDepartment of Justice must report to Congress within 24 months on implementation.\r\nGroups endorsing this legislation include the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, the National Center for Victims of Crime, National Crime Victims Bar Association, National Crime Victims Law institute, Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic, CHILD USA, Utah Coalition against Pornography, Children\u2019s Justice Fund, Utah Coalition against Sexual Assault, Thorn, and DV LEAP.\r\nCosponsors of this bill include Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) along with Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=BD174A6D-CF7B-4883-91CC-1E13A3E74056", "RELEASE: Hatch Co-Sponsors Bipartisan Fix to Background Check System", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\u201cThis is a commonsense solution that closes a hole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons, fugitives, drug addicts, persons with serious mental illness, and other prohibited persons\u201d\r\nWASHINGTON\u00a0\u2013 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior Republican in the United States Senate, joined a bipartisan group of Senators in supporting legislation proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to make important fixes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.\r\n\u201cI\u2019m pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn\u2019s bipartisan Fix NICS Act,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cThis is a commonsense solution that closes a hole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons, fugitives, drug addicts, persons with serious mental illness, and other prohibited persons. Our proposal will help prevent future tragedies by facilitating better information-sharing to prevent the sale of arms to those who would do us harm.\u201d\r\nThe National Shooting Sports Foundation, which supports the bill, added, \u201cThis legislation will provide states with the necessary resources to promptly and efficiently provide disqualifying records to NICS on those who are prohibited under current law from possessing firearms. Federally licensed firearms retailers rely upon the NICS to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons.\u00a0 This legislation will fix NICS so that background checks are accurate and reliable.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nThe text of the bill can be found\u00a0here.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSummary of the bill:\r\n \r\nRequires federal agencies and states to create NICS implementation plans focused on uploading information to the background check system showing that a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms under current law\u2014including measures to verify the accuracy of records.\r\n \r\n \r\nHolds federal agencies accountable if they fail to upload relevant records to the background check system through public reporting and prohibiting bonus pay for political appointees.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n \r\n \r\nRewards states that comply with their NICS implementation plans through federal grant preferences and incentives, while also increasing accountability through public reporting for those who do not comply with their plans.\r\n \r\n \r\nReauthorizes and improves important law enforcement programs to help state governments share relevant criminal record information with NICS.\r\n \r\n \r\nCreates a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing firearms under current law.\r\n \r\n \r\nProvides important technical assistance to federal agencies and states that are working to comply with NICS record-sharing requirements.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=E7F111A4-93AF-458A-815D-1693360D78A0", "Hatch Opens 4th Day of Tax Reform Hearings with Call for Civility", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the fourth day of consideration for his tax reform proposal\u2014the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2014by asking members to temper outbursts to permit a civil debate.\r\nHatch also reiterated the importance of lowering the corporate tax rate to make the United States more competitive. He also emphasized the need to repeal the healthcare individual mandate, which disproportionately burdens low- and middle-income families in Utah.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nAs I've said, I don't begrudge\u00a0anyone for holding a passionate\u00a0viewpoint on any issue, and I\u00a0don't doubt my various\u00a0colleagues' sincerity.\u00a0But for the committee to\u00a0operate, we need to be\u00a0respectful and allow the debate\u00a0to unfold in an orderly fashion.\u00a0Members are, of course, free to\u00a0disagree about any issue, but no\u00a0one should interrupt another\u00a0member or shut down the other\u00a0side or impugn their colleague's motives.\u00a0In my opinion, we saw quite a\u00a0bit of that and some of it was\u00a0pretty inflammatory.\u00a0As for myself, I can take it.\u00a0I can guarantee that in my\u00a040-plus years in the Senate,\u00a0I've been called worse names. For the good of the committee, I\u00a0want to encourage my colleagues\u00a0to dial back the rhetoric and\u00a0turn down the volume of some of\u00a0our arguments.\u00a0\r\nSenator Hatch outlined how his tax reform proposal \u201cwill help businesses of all sizes,\u201d citing the bill\u2019s support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other small business organizations. Hatch also noted that members \u201con both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years.\u201d\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nContinuing the conversation from the previous day, Hatch reiterated that nothing in his tax proposal takes away anyone\u2019s health insurance. The JCT Chief of Staff, Tom Barthold, affirmed that the \u201cmodified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure\u201d and that the analysis \u201cincludes a lot of taxpayer behavior.\u201d\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\u00a0\r\nLet's be clear:\u00a0Anyone who says we're hiking\u00a0taxes on low-income families is\u00a0misstating the facts.\u00a0Anyone who says people will see\u00a0their taxes go up because we're\u00a0taking away their health\u00a0insurance is also misstating the\u00a0facts.\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday, we will continue our consideration of the chairman\u2019s mark, as modified, for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\u00a0 Having walked through both the mark and modification, with extensive questioning and discussion, we began consideration of amendments last night.\u00a0\r\nAdmittedly, things were a little chaotic at the outset and I know some tensions ran high.\u00a0 We\u2019re going to improve the process and communication today and, hopefully, make things move a little more smoothly.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\r\nWith that issue addressed, I\u2019d like to say a few words about the tone of our discussion this week, because I think it has been a problem.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs I\u2019ve said, I don\u2019t begrudge anyone for holding a passionate viewpoint on any issue.\u00a0 And, I don\u2019t doubt my colleagues\u2019 sincerity in any views they express or any votes they take.\u00a0 But, for the committee to operate, we need to be respectful and allow the debate to unfold in an orderly fashion.\u00a0\r\nMembers are, of course, free to disagree about any issue.\u00a0 But no one should interrupt another member, shout down the other side, or impugn their colleague\u2019s motives on substantive or procedural disagreements.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nWe saw quite a bit of that yesterday, and some of it was pretty inflammatory.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs for myself, I can take it \u2013 I can guarantee that, in my 40 years in the Senate, I\u2019ve been called worse names than anyone on this committee would come up with.\u00a0 But, for the good of the committee, I want to urge my colleagues to dial back the rhetoric and turn down the volume of some of our arguments.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThis is the last time I will raise issues about process for the duration of this markup, because, in my view, if we\u2019re going to have a lively debate, it should be about policy.\u00a0\r\nSo let\u2019s talk about policy differences for a moment.\u00a0 Let me reiterate what our bill does.\u00a0\r\nOur bill gives tax relief to individuals and families across the board, with the middle class getting the largest benefit, relative to their income.\u00a0 We provide this relief primarily by cutting rates and expanding credits for parents and families.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nOur bill will also help businesses of all sizes.\u00a0 Our pass-through solution is simple and effective, which is why the bill is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and most other small business organizations.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe business section of the mark also includes, among other things, a significant reduction in corporate rates.\u00a0 I know my colleagues have characterized this in a number of ways.\u00a0 But, this is not some radical, right-wing approach.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAs I\u2019ve noted, members of this committee on both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years now.\u00a0 The ranking member actually introduced legislation that would have reduced the rate to 24 percent.\u00a0 Yet, now it appears that the notion that we\u2019d even consider moving down from the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is something totally abhorrent to Democrats.\u00a0\r\nI\u2019ve yet to hear an explanation from anyone on the other side as to why they\u2019ve changed their minds and are now characterizing our efforts to modernize America\u2019s business tax system as a \u201ccorporate giveaway.\u201d\u00a0 That would be interesting to hear.\u00a0\r\nAs we debated at length yesterday, the mark will also zero out the punitive individual mandate tax established under Obamacare.\u00a0 Despite claims to the contrary, we contend that this is a pro-family, pro-middle class, and pro-growth proposition.\u00a0 It will undo one of the most regressive taxes in the tax code, and allow us to provide additional tax relief to middle-class families.\u00a0\r\nBy now, I\u2019m sure most of my colleagues are aware of the most recent developments with JCT\u2019s updated distributional analysis.\u00a0 I expect our friends on the other side will try to make some hay out of the new table this morning, and that\u2019s their right.\u00a0\r\nBut, I want to provide some context before that begins.\u00a0 We developed a modification to the chairman\u2019s mark that included additional tax relief for families throughout the middle class.\u00a0 Once again, it expanded further the child tax credit, made it more refundable, and provided it to a greater number of families with children.\u00a0 We also adjusted the rates downward for middle class families.\u00a0 And, of course, we relieved those middle and lower income families of the burdens imposed by the individual mandate tax.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nWith those changes in place, JCT noted a projected uptick in taxes owed by those in some lower income brackets.\u00a0 Obviously, we have no intention of raising taxes on these families.\u00a0 Every Republican on this committee has been committed to providing tax cuts to every income cohort.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSo, here\u2019s the rub, JCT\u2019s analysis doesn\u2019t show that we\u2019re raising taxes on lower income Americans.\u00a0 We\u2019re seeing some taxes go up in the distributional analysis because of a scoring assumption, not because of tax rates or even tax policy.\u00a0\r\nCongressional scorekeepers have assumed that, if the individual mandate were to be repealed, a segment of people will opt voluntarily to not get health insurance.\u00a0 The assumption extends even to those who currently get their insurance for free under Medicaid.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSo, JCT began with an assumption that some people in the lower income brackets will opt to not purchase health insurance and thus not take advantage of available tax credit subsidies.\u00a0 Without those credits, they see an overall uptick in their tax liability.\u00a0\r\nI don\u2019t fault JCT for this.\u00a0 They have to make assumptions in order to make credible projections.\u00a0\r\nHowever, in the world that exists outside of those assumptions, people will be making their own choices.\u00a0 In fact, our bill will give them additional freedom to do so.\u00a0\r\nNothing in our mark will impact the availability of premium subsidy credits.\u00a0\r\nNothing in the mark will direct or suggest to taxpayers that they should not take advantage of the credits.\r\nThis is the result of an assumption about economic behavior that is 100 percent voluntary.\u00a0\r\nI believe JCT has additional data that will demonstrate that, but for the behavioral assumptions that accompany the repeal of the individual mandate tax, our mark provides significant relief to all low- and middle-class income brackets.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nI know that we\u2019re going to hear arguments to the contrary this morning, but let\u2019s be clear: Anyone who says that we\u2019re hiking taxes on low-income families is misstating the facts.\u00a0 Anyone who says people will see their taxes go up because we\u2019re taking away their health insurance is also misstating the facts.\u00a0\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s modified mark,\u00a0click here.\r\nA score of the modified mark may be found\u00a0here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=1AD98360-8354-4B93-AA36-A3891FEAEAA9", "November 16, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Rich County", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Woodruff  When: Thursday November 16th, 2017 @ 1:00 PM \u2013 2:30 PM  Where: Woodruff Town Hall, 195 S. Main Street, Woodruff, UT 84086", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=38B2AFA3-48DE-46D7-8712-DCC34FB2439D", "November 16, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Morgan County", "2017-11-16", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Mountain Green  When: Thursday November 16th, 2017 @ 9:00 AM \u2013 10:30 AM  Where: Mountain Green Fire Department, 4565 W Old Highway Road, Mountain Green, UT 84050", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=735", "On the National Discussion Regarding Roy Moore", "2017-11-15", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\"Sexual harassment and inappropriate and unwanted sexual behavior with anyone \u2013 especially underage youth \u2013 is unacceptable. Period. We should fiercely oppose sexual predators, especially those that seek or hold the public\u2019s esteem and trust. Whether it is a candidate for U.S.Senate, an actor, a movie producer, or anyone with authority over others, I condemn this behavior in the strongest terms.\"", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=15A609DF-7B10-4667-9395-95178EF5C3A9", "Hatch Statement on Richard Cordray Resigning from CFPB", "2017-11-15", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding Richard Cordray\u2019s decision to step down as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).\r\n\u201cFor some time, the CFPB has been a problem,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cTherefore, it\u2019s high time that changes be made. With a leadership structure of dubious constitutionality, jurisdiction ill-defined but expansively seized, and a policy orientation that sews more chaos than settles expectations, it\u2019s fitting that Mr. Cordray has decided to step down. We thank him for his service, but look confidently to the President to make the right choice in a replacement. I stand at the ready to assist in the legislative efforts which may well accompany new leadership at the Agency.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=2C2FBD1D-4C40-4FF4-AE79-A2EE10A353D4", "Hatch Makes Case for Including Individual Mandate Repeal in Tax Reform Plan", "2017-11-15", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the third day of consideration for his tax reform proposal\u2014the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2014by outlining updates to the chairman\u2019s mark. Those updates include effectively repealing the individual mandate tax and increasing the child tax credit, among other provisions. Hatch explained how zeroing out the harsh tax burden of the individual mandate would not only provide tax relief for low- and middle-income Americans, but also save the US government $318 billion over ten years to use for further tax cuts.\r\n\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nThe individual mandate isn\u2019t just any tax, it\u2019s a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers.\u00a0 According to the IRS, roughly 80 percent of Americans who paid the individual mandate tax in 2015 made less than $50,000 a year. Zeroing out the mandate will raise $318 billion over 10 years, money we use in our mark to actually lower taxes for the middle class.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nAlso, let\u2019s keep in mind that the mandate has been a pretty ineffective tool.\u00a0 It hasn\u2019t prevented premiums from skyrocketing, nor has it kept insurers from leaving markets.\u00a0So, in the end, keeping the individual mandate tax in place means retaining the status quo, which isn\u2019t working all too well.\u00a0 Zeroing it out means we have a chance to provide greater tax relief to middle-class families, through both reduced penalties and lower overall rates.\u00a0\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday we will continue our consideration of the chairman\u2019s mark for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\u00a0 Last night, as promised, we delivered to members a modification that we will incorporate into the mark this morning.\u00a0 After that, we will walk through the modification, and members will get an opportunity to discuss and ask questions about the modification.\u00a0 Once that process is complete, the mark, as modified, will be open for amendment.\u00a0\r\nBefore we take these next steps, I\u2019d like to make a few initial comments.\u00a0\r\nI want to thank my fellow committee members.\u00a0 We were able to include a number of their amendments in the modification, and the mark will be better for it.\u00a0 From the outset of this process, producing this legislation has been a group effort as I have been joined, and more than ably assisted, by the majority members of the committee.\u00a0 I want thank them and their staffs for the hours, days, and weeks of hard work that have gone into this process.\u00a0 By producing this modification, we\u2019ve taken another big step forward for tax reform.\u00a0\r\nSo, once again, thank you all for your hard work.\u00a0\r\nNow, let\u2019s talk about some of the highlights in the modification.\u00a0 I\u2019ll note that, while we made some important alterations to the mark with this modification, these aren\u2019t sea changes.\u00a0 The core of the mark remains the same, meaning that complaints that yesterday\u2019s walkthrough was a waste of time were misplaced.\u00a0\r\nOne significant modification of the initial mark, which will benefit American families, is a greater expansion of the child tax credit, bringing it to $2000 per child and raising the income caps on the credit to allow more middle-class families to claim it.\r\nIn addition, we will lower individual tax rates even further than in the original mark.\r\nThe 22.5 percent rate will drop to 22 percent.\r\nThe 25 percent bracket will drop to 24 percent.\r\nAnd, the 32.5 percent bracket will drop to 32 percent.\r\nWhile they may seem like small changes, these modest rate reductions \u2013 along with the additional expansion of the child tax credit \u2013 will let us channel even more tax relief to the middle class.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe modification also streamlines pass-through provisions, ensuring more small businesses \u2013 the engines of job creation for our economy \u2013 have greater access to the benefits.\u00a0 We also raise the cap on the exemption for the W-2 wage limitation up to $500,000 for married couples, $250,000 for all others.\u00a0 And, the modification expands the availability of the 17.4 percent deduction to service pass-through businesses for taxpayers with taxable income up to the new exemption level for the W-2 wage limitation.\u00a0\r\nOn top of that, the modification improves the new international tax system we set out in the original mark and it ensures that the new 20 percent corporate tax rate will be permanent, even under the restrictions of the Byrd Rule.\u00a0 We\u2019ll talk more specifically about these measures as we walk through the modification.\u00a0\r\nFinally, the modification reduces the penalty under the so-called individual mandate tax down to zero.\u00a0 Yesterday, this was the source of some consternation among our Democratic colleagues, who were apparently shocked to learn that Republicans oppose the individual mandate.\r\nI expect we\u2019ll hear a lot about this today. We\u2019ll hear claims that the inclusion of the individual mandate tax relief is some kind of process foul and that we\u2019ve somehow expanded the scope of the markup by including it in the modification.\u00a0\r\nBut, as was reiterated several times yesterday, the individual mandate is a tax.\u00a0\r\nThe relevant statute is the Internal Revenue Code.\r\nThe mandate is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.\u00a0\r\nWe\u2019re all familiar with the old saying: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it\u2019s probably a duck.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nI think we can all agree that the individual mandate is a tax.\u00a0 After all, the Supreme Court would have nullified the mandate had they not reached that very conclusion.\u00a0 So, the mandate really only exists today because it is a tax.\r\nIn other words, we haven\u2019t expanded anything by including individual mandate relief in the modification.\u00a0 And, by no objective or reasonable estimation does the inclusion of mandate relief require the inclusion of every federal health program under the committee\u2019s jurisdiction, as some of my friends argued yesterday.\u00a0 Nor does it necessitate the presence of a Congressional Budget Office representative at the table, another demand we\u2019ve heard in the last 18 hours.\r\nThese demands are absurd.\u00a0 The inclusion of a tax in a tax markup is not a sufficient justification for dramatically altering the way this committee operates.\u00a0\r\nWe will stick to the tax code for this markup. That means the Joint Committee on Taxation will assist us with scorekeeping and will be at the table.\u00a0 And, it means that, if my colleagues want to raise health care matters from the Internal Revenue Code, their amendments will be germane. Any amendments that go beyond the tax code will not be germane.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAnd, let me say this, if my colleagues believe we need to discuss our broader healthcare system and come up with solutions, I agree with them.\u00a0 We absolutely should get to work on fixing what ails our federal health programs, but we\u2019re not going to do so in the context of a tax markup.\u00a0\r\nBy the way, the individual mandate isn\u2019t just any tax, it\u2019s a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers.\u00a0 According to the IRS, roughly 80 percent of Americans who paid the individual mandate tax in 2015 made less than $50,000 a year.\r\nZeroing out the mandate will raise $318 billion over 10 years, money we use in our mark to actually lower taxes for the middle class.\u00a0 Some colleagues have spent a great deal of time over the past couple days lamenting the possibility of tax hikes on the middle class.\u00a0 Yet, today, I expect that we\u2019ll hear these same colleagues argue that this tax \u2013 which, once again, overwhelmingly burdens low-to-middle income taxpayers \u2013 is an absolute necessity and, without it, our health care system will descend into oblivion.\u00a0\r\nJust to maintain some perspective, nothing in our bill would keep eligible individuals from receiving premium tax credits to pay for coverage.\u00a0 Nothing would require those who are eligible for Medicaid to opt-out of receiving free health care.\u00a0 And, of course, it wouldn\u2019t tell those who are offered insurance from their employers to refuse it.\u00a0\r\nAlso, let\u2019s keep in mind that the mandate has been a pretty ineffective tool.\u00a0 It hasn\u2019t prevented premiums from skyrocketing, nor has it kept insurers from leaving markets.\u00a0\r\nSo, in the end, keeping the individual mandate tax in place means retaining the status quo, which isn\u2019t working all too well.\u00a0 Zeroing it out means we have a chance to provide greater tax relief to middle-class families, through both reduced penalties and lower overall rates.\u00a0\r\nUltimately, I\u2019m more than willing to defend the decision to end the individual mandate taxes as well as the decision to include it in the modification.\u00a0 It\u2019s the right thing to do.\u00a0 Far more people will be better off as a result.\u00a0\r\nI think the original chairman\u2019s mark provided an exceptional path forward on tax reform, both in terms of middle-class tax relief and economic growth.\u00a0 But, today, I have to say that the modification is a significant improvement.\u00a0 It addresses problems noted by members on both sides and it will give Americans bigger paychecks, more opportunities, and a more prosperous economy.\u00a0\r\nI look forward to another lively discussion here today.\u00a0 But before I turn to Senator Wyden for his opening remarks, I want to make clear that I plan to keep things orderly today.\u00a0 I will make sure that members are recognized so we all get a chance to speak and ask questions, but I won\u2019t abide the disorder and hostility we witnessed yesterday afternoon.\r\nI don\u2019t begrudge anyone who expresses a passionate viewpoint, I just ask that members of the committee be respectful of one another.\u00a0\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s modified mark, click here.\r\nA score of the modified mark may be found here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-pass-2018-defense-spending-bill", "Bishop Votes to Pass 2018 Defense Spending Bill", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "robbishop.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON  Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement after the House passed the Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018:\nThis years NDAA finally recognizes that the 4 budget cuts and 2 manpower cuts to our military during the Obama years have harmed our military readiness. This bill, with a strong bipartisan vote, finally realizes this trend must be reversed. It provides the pathway to rebuild our military infrastructure. There are several provisions that will be of benefit to Utahs Hill Air Force Base and the civilian and military workforce that makes Hill so essential to our military success.\nBACKGROUND: As a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, a number of Rep. Bishops priorities were included in theHouses base bill and the Conference Report. Those priorities include the construction of aConsolidated Mission Control Center, aPump House, and aLife Support Facilityto support the mission of the F-35 and other aircraft at Utahs Hill Air Force Base.Also, efforts of Rep. Bishop will extend direct hiring authority for Hill AFB. This authority will allow Hill leaders to expedite the hiring process for civilian employees.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/final-version-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-passes-the-house", "Final Version of the National Defense Authorization Act Passes the House", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2013 Today, the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the House of Representatives, with Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) serving as a conferee. The bill rebuilds our military through equipment modernization and improves readiness. It also reforms the way that the Pentagon does business and gives them the tools they need to make better, more responsible decisions.\n\u201cAfter years of cuts, we are finally beginning to rebuild and provide more for our national defense,\u201d Stewart said. \u201cWe have too many planes grounded, troops untrained, and ships out of service. The NDAA address essential readiness recovery concerns that will provide our armed forces with the resources they need to keep our homeland safe. With this bill becoming a law, we are putting Americans\u2019 safety and security first.\u201d\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=9D0AC1EA-9058-433E-869C-381B4213DB84", "Why the appointment of federal judges is so important", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "By Senator Orrin G. Hatch\r\nNovember 14, 2017\r\nhttps://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692690/Orrin-Hatch-Why-the-appointment-of-federal-judges-is-so-important.html\u00a0\r\nTwo weeks ago, the Senate confirmed the nominations of four women and men to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Each holds the American Bar Association\u2019s highest rating and is highly regarded throughout the legal profession. Each was supported by home-state senators, both Democrats and Republicans. Yet these superb nominees received between 38 and 41 votes against them.\r\nWith nearly 140 life-tenured judicial positions vacant, and President Donald Trump steadily sending nominees to the Senate for review, it is worth taking a step back to remind ourselves why the appointment of federal judges is so important.\r\nOur system of government came together by design, not by accident. The Constitution\u2019s preamble lists the purposes of that design, including justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, the general welfare and the \u201cblessings of liberty.\u201d Our system of government will produce these results only if it works as envisioned.\r\nAmerica\u2019s Founders designed the judiciary to be what they called the \u201cweakest\u201d and \u201cleast dangerous\u201d branch. Judges are supposed to settle real legal disputes by impartially interpreting and applying the law. They are to take the law as it is, as the people and their elected representatives choose to fashion it. In this way, the American people stay in control of the government.\r\nSome presidents, however, have appointed political judges who twist the law into what they want it to be; some of these judges reach certain decisions to further an ideological agenda. It\u2019s as if the political ends justify the judicial means. Political judges turn the constitutional design on its head by putting the government in control of the American people.\r\nThis is one reason, for example, that the federal government has become so powerful at the expense of the states. Judges looked at the Constitution\u2019s description of federal powers and turned them into blank checks.\r\nIt\u2019s also how religious freedom, central to the very identity of this country, has become so compromised. The First Amendment was drafted so that the prohibition on an \u201cestablishment of religion\u201d would be narrow and the guarantee of the \u201cfree exercise of religion\u201d would be broad. Judges have literally inverted the First Amendment by distorting the meaning of those words.\r\nTwice in the last few years, the Supreme Court came within one vote of choking off the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When I helped draft and pass RFRA in 1993, Congress was united that federal law should provide broad and generous protection to the exercise of religion by people of all faiths. Today, some political interests want a few judges to pick and choose whose exercise of religion matters and whose can be stifled.\r\nThe conflict over judicial appointments, then, is really a conflict over judicial power. The confirmation process in the Senate, laid out in the Constitution, reflects a perennial consensus that America needs impartial judges. For more than two centuries, the Senate resorted to time-consuming roll-call votes for the confirmation of only 4 percent of federal judges, and conflicts over individual nominees were rare.\r\nBut times have changed. Two-thirds of all judicial confirmations with more than 20 negative votes have occurred in the past two decades, and the Senate has been forced to take roll-call votes on more than 80 percent of nominees who had no opposition at all. Highly qualified nominees, like those approved last week, are now attacked for the very reason they should be approved: because they will be impartial judges who will leave the politics out of judicial decision-making.\r\nIn this conflict over judicial appointments, everything that our system of government was designed to provide, including liberty itself, hangs in the balance. Should we fail, American jurisprudence may well descend into nothing more than another avenue for political disputes and conflict. But as shown last week, Republicans in the Senate are prepared to take a stand and assure that impartial, nonpolitical justice prevails.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=88BD49AB-A610-49E2-92FC-07D0FEAD0A0F", "Hatch Sets the Record Straight on His Tax Reform Proposal", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the second day of consideration for his tax reform proposal\u2014the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2014by clarifying issues that were raised about the bill after its initial introduction. Hatch debunked the myths that there would be massive tax cuts for the rich, massive tax increases for the middle class, and irregular processes to pass the bill.\r\n\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nA number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses. First is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.\u00a0 That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee. The problem with that claim is that it\u2019s just not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts \u2013 in terms of percentage of income \u2013 will go to middle-income earners. I understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats\u2019 who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT\u2019s analysis shouldn\u2019t be ignored altogether.\u00a0\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday, the committee will continue its consideration of the chairman\u2019s mark for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\u00a0 We will begin by walking through the mark with the help of Mr. Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, and then proceed to questions from members.\r\nFollowing the conclusion of this this process, which will likely take some time, a modified mark will be provided to members later today which reflects input received from the amendments that have been filed. Because of a large number of amendments that we have processed, the modified mark will be given to members later today, as has been discussed with the Ranking Member, and everyone can then have time to read over the modifications. After that process, we will resume the markup tomorrow morning with the modified mark.\u00a0\r\nBut before we proceed today, I want to make a few comments.\u00a0\r\nI appreciated members\u2019 participation during yesterday\u2019s session. I was glad to hear everyone\u2019s initial thoughts.\u00a0\r\nHowever, a number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses.\u00a0\r\nFirst is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.\u00a0 That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe problem with that claim is that it\u2019s just not true.\r\nThe Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts \u2013 in terms of percentage of income \u2013 will go to middle-income earners.\u00a0\r\nI understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats\u2019 who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT\u2019s analysis shouldn\u2019t be ignored altogether.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nSecond, there was the repeated claim \u2013 supposedly based on JCT analysis \u2013 that the bill is a massive tax HIKE on the middle class.\u00a0 To reach this conclusion, members had to willfully twist the meaning of JCT data.\r\nSpecifically, members cited a JCT table concluding that some in the middle class may see a tax increase under the bill, while those same members completely ignored the fact that the very same data showed that the vast majority of middle class taxpayers \u2013 about 90 percent \u2013 were either going to get a tax cut or, at the very least, be held harmless under the bill.\u00a0\r\nYesterday, I mentioned a tax bill introduced by the Ranking Member a few years back.\u00a0 I noted that there were a number of similarities between his previous bill and the one we\u2019re debating today.\u00a0 However, there are some differences.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nFor example, I\u2019m not aware of any JCT distributional analysis on the Wyden-Coats tax bill, but the Tax Policy Center did look at some of the potential distributional effects of the Ranking Member\u2019s bill when he introduced it with former Senator Gregg.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nInterestingly enough, TPC found that close to 25 percent of middle-income taxpayers would have gotten tax increase under Wyden-Coats, and around 17 percent of the lowest income earners would have seen their taxes raised.\u00a0\r\nNow, I don\u2019t raise this to play tit-for-tat.\u00a0 And, I do think there are reasons to not consider analyses by outside think tanks to be the gospel when it comes to these matters.\u00a0 But, I do think it\u2019s fair to note, for the record, that the Ranking Member, in the relatively recent past, authored and championed tax reform legislation that, according to the standards he and others have used to criticize the current bill, was far more problematic and, according to a think tank often cited by members on the other side, would have raised taxes on far more middle- and low-income taxpayers than the legislation we are considering this week.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nNext, I want to address the many complaints about process we heard during opening remarks yesterday.\u00a0 Members lamented the lack of hearings, arguing that the 70-plus hearings we\u2019ve had since I\u2019ve been the lead Republican on this committee weren\u2019t enough and that we needed multiple additional hearings to examine the specifics of the chairman\u2019s mark.\r\nWhat they didn\u2019t mention was that this demand would be a significant departure from the way this committee has traditionally operated.\u00a0 Historically, the committee hasn\u2019t held hearings on specific marks issued by its chairmen.\u00a0 We certainly didn\u2019t do so when we considered the Affordable Care Act, or any other major mark in the modern history of the committee.\u00a0\r\nIt is, therefore, absurd to demand that we do so now.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nIn addition, we heard members complain about the partisan nature of this exercise.\u00a0 Yet, I don\u2019t believe a single committee member of the minority even acknowledged the fact that, three months ago, every single one of them signed a letter indicating, among other things, that they would not engage in a bipartisan tax reform process unless Republicans agreed up front to not use reconciliation.\r\nGiven the history of this committee and Congress\u2019s recent history with regard to tax policy, such a demand is entirely unreasonable.\u00a0 It is not a rarity for major tax bills to move through reconciliation.\u00a0 And, the potential use of reconciliation in no way bars the possibility of bipartisan compromise.\u00a0 Knowing this, I can only conclude that the intent of my colleagues\u2019 letter was to communicate that they had no intention of engaging meaningfully in tax reform.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nBut, even if I\u2019m wrong in that interpretation, over the past 10 months, I have made countless public statements where I called on my Democratic colleagues to join in this effort, to offer their views and advice without preconditions or upfront demands.\u00a0\u00a0 Yet, to my knowledge, no one on the Democratic side said anything to suggest that my conclusion about their prerequisites was incorrect.\r\nFor what it\u2019s worth, I\u2019m still hoping we can get some Democratic votes in favor of this bill.\u00a0 As I mentioned yesterday, the vast majority of the major proposals in our bill have enjoyed bipartisan support in the recent past, including from Democratic members of this committee.\r\nMiddle-class tax relief is something that members of both parties should be able to get behind.\r\nLowering corporate tax rates and making America\u2019s businesses more competitive is something that both Republicans and Democrats have sought to do for years.\r\nAnd, updating our outdated international system has been a bipartisan endeavor for a while a now.\u00a0 As I noted yesterday, the Senate minority leader, as a co-chair of one of our working groups, drafted a report calling for international tax reforms that are consistent with what we\u2019re trying to do with this bill.\u00a0\r\nI intend to move forward.\u00a0 If members want to vote on the substance of the policy and not with an eye toward next November, I think a few more will eventually find themselves supporting this approach.\r\nThis is a good bill.\u00a0 It will give real tax relief to middle-class families.\u00a0 It will grow our economy, increase wages, and create jobs.\u00a0 I think that, ultimately, most members who decide to vote against it based on partisan strategy will regret taking such a course.\u00a0\r\nOnce again, the next step in this process is to walk through the mark.\u00a0 We\u2019ll begin that process in a few minutes.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nTo view a full copy of the chairman\u2019s mark,\u00a0click here.\r\nA score of the mark may be found\u00a0here.\r\nA section-by-section of the mark may be found\u00a0here.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=327372EA-69CE-467D-8332-65082B64C2CA", "Heller, Scott Amendment to Double the Child Tax Credit Included in Senate's Updated Tax Relief Bill", "2017-11-14", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 The U.S. Senate Finance Committee's\u00a0newly released Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u00a0includes an amendment filed by U.S. Senators Dean Heller (R-NV) and Tim Scott (R-SC) that would increase the child tax credit to $2,000. The current child tax credit is $1,000, and the previous version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the child tax credit to $1,650.\u00a0\r\nThe Senate Finance Committee is expected to begin debating and marking up the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes the Heller-Scott amendment to significantly increase the child tax credit, tomorrow. Along with Senators Heller and Scott, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have also led the fight within Congress to increase the child tax credit and welcome the updated provision to allow middle-class families to keep more of their paychecks.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\u201cGiving middle-class families the biggest tax cut possible has been my first priority in tax reform, and an enhanced child tax credit is a significant way to deliver this much-needed and overdue relief to thousands of Nevada families,\u201d\u00a0said Senator Heller. \u201cI\u2019m pleased the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has adopted my and Senator Scott\u2019s amendment to increase the credit to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000 over current law. This change will quite literally put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of hardworking Nevadans and represents yet another step forward in making the American dream possible again for so many people.\u201d\r\n\"We set out to ensure that tax reform would help hardworking American families, and an increased child tax credit will do just that,\"\u00a0Senator Scott said.\u00a0\"As the child of a single mother, I truly can't overstate how important these dollars will be for parents across the country, be it to help buy school supplies, a new pair of sneakers or just have a night out as a family. I want to thank my colleagues for their important work on this issue.\"\r\n\u201cWhile I still need to see details, I welcome news from the Finance Committee that the child tax credit will be expanded to $2000. I remain committed to ensuring that tax reform provides real and meaningful relief for working American families,\u201d\u00a0said Senator Rubio.\r\n\u201cI am thrilled to hear that the revised Senate tax reform proposal will double the child tax credit to $2,000 per child. Details are still being worked out, and I eagerly await their release. But if true, this could provide unprecedented tax relief for working moms and dads, and a great victory for American families,\"\u00a0said Senator Lee.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=785B4F35-52E6-4C13-95F5-3A002874814A", "The Senate tax bill is exactly what the middle class needs", "2017-11-13", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "By: Senator Orrin Hatch\r\nhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-senate-tax-bill-is-exactly-what-the-middle-class-needs/2017/11/09/1eddff30-c589-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.702bf2d1ad70\r\n\r\nFor too long, middle-class Americans have struggled with stagnant wages, sluggish labor markets and economic growth well below the historic average. Much of the economic stagnation stems from our nation\u2019s broken tax code, which has become too big, too complex and too antiquated to satisfy the needs of 21st-century Americans. Our tax code is a self-inflicted wound on our economy.\r\nThat\u2019s why leaders in both the Senate and House, as well as the Trump administration, have been working together on comprehensive legislation to overhaul our tax system. Tax reform will provide relief and bigger paychecks to low- and middle-income families, make America a better place to start and grow a business, and allow American businesses to compete in the global marketplace.\r\nThose are the primary objectives of the Senate\u2019s tax plan, which we unveiled this week.\r\nUnder our proposal, a family of four with income around $73,000 \u2014 roughly the median last year \u2014 could see their federal income tax bill reduced by nearly $1,500, a decrease of nearly 40 percent, and a corresponding boost in take-home pay. Of course, with close to 150 million individual income-tax filers in the United States, there is substantial variation among individuals and families. Even among those with identical incomes, precise amounts of tax relief will vary. Without question, though, the Senate tax bill provides tax relief to the middle class, as promised.\r\nBy reducing individual tax rates across the board, doubling the standard deduction and expanding the child tax credit, our proposal would put real money in the pockets of working families to help them save for the future or just make ends meet. Our proposal also vastly simplifies the tax code by clearing away numerous special deductions, credits and the like, while preserving important deductions for things such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and medical expenses. These changes unrig our code so it works for ordinary Americans \u2014 not special interests.\r\nIn addition, the Senate proposal would give a leg up to small businesses, which are engines of job creation in our economy, employing about half of all U.S. workers and responsible for significant amounts of job creation. Under the current system, most owners of small businesses that are not incorporated have to subject all of their income \u2014 both their regular compensation and their business income \u2014 to individual tax rates, as they \u201cpass through\u201d earnings from their businesses onto their personal tax forms. Our plan provides a simple way to give business owners a lower rate on their salaries, allows them to deduct from their taxable income a significant portion of their pass-through business earnings and protects against those trying to \u201cgame the system\u201d by mischaracterizing one form of income as another to get a lower tax bill.\r\nMake no mistake, tax reform for small business helps the middle class. The Senate plan will help small businesses expand, invest, increase wages and hire more workers, all for the benefit of middle-class Americans.\r\nOn top of that, our plan will lower our punitively high statutory corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the industrialized world, from 35 percent to 20\u2009percent, bringing us below the average rate among our major trading partners. The lower corporate rate, coupled with enhanced abilities for companies to recover costs of investing in things such as equipment, will help boost investment, leading to higher productivity and wages. A lower corporate rate, by itself, means gains for workers, because corporate taxes drag down wages.\r\nThe Senate proposal also modernizes our international tax system, giving incentives, or \u201ccarrots,\u201d to attract economic activity to the United States. It also provides \u201csticks\u201d to patrol against companies eroding our tax base by moving capital, including intellectual property, to low-tax jurisdictions simply to lower their tax bills.\r\nOur current business-tax system punishes U.S. companies for doing business and investing in the United States and, in many ways, pushes economic activity outside the country. It also gives significant advantages to foreign companies, which is why so many American businesses have been opting to become foreign companies themselves.\r\nThe existing tax code means less U.S. economic activity and pushes American jobs, production and intellectual property abroad. Overhauling our business-tax system will increase wages, create jobs, bring back capital and investment and make the United States an inviting place to do business.\r\nThese reforms \u2014 on both the individual and business sides \u2014 ultimately translate to significant benefits for American families. We have a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity to take action to improve the lives of the middle class and to help America prosper. This is a time to pay attention to those Americans who have felt left behind in economic stagnation, by providing tax relief and economic opportunity. The Senate tax bill released this week does just that.\r\n\r\nClick\u00a0here\u00a0to learn more about the Senate tax reform proposal.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7CC671A1-E0E7-4BFA-B9F8-3F3A1DB2B0D2", "Hatch Adds Muscle to DC Office", "2017-11-13", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014Today Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior Republican in the United States Senate, announced a number of key hires to his Washington office.\r\n\u201cI\u2019m thrilled to announce several exciting additions to my team in Washington,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said. \u201cThese new staff members will be critical in helping me achieve my ultimate objective: To deliver real results for the people of Utah. My office has long been recognized as one of the best on Capitol Hill\u2014both in terms of legislation and constituent services. As the Senate works to break through partisan gridlock to tackle our nation\u2019s greatest problems, I\u2019m grateful to have a team with such profound depth and expertise.\u201d\u00a0\r\n \r\nPeter Carey joins Senator Hatch\u2019s Judiciary Staff as a Counsel on criminal justice issues.\u00a0Peter has worked previously at the Department of Justice, NYPD, Senate Judiciary Committee, and Cadwalader, Wishersham & Taft LLP, where he most recently focused on criminal defense issues. Peter holds a law degree from Georgetown.\r\n \r\n \r\nJacob Olidort joins as a National Security Advisor and Counsel on foreign policy issues.\u00a0Jacob is a veteran of the United States Department of Defense, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Modern War Institute at West Point, the CIA, and was most recently an Adjunct Professor at George Washington. Jacob holds degrees from Princeton, Harvard, and Brandeis University.\r\n \r\n \r\nMatt Hoffman joins Senator Hatch\u2019s Finance Committee team as Policy Director.Matt most recently served as a longtime aide to Speaker Paul Ryan in the Speaker\u2019s Office, the Budget Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee.\r\n \r\n \r\nMatt Jensen, a longtime aide to Senator Hatch, will be promoted from Deputy Legislative Director to Legislative Director.\u00a0\u00a0Matt has been with Hatch since 2011 and was key to helping him pass more legislative proposals in the last Congress than any other Senator.\r\n \r\n \r\nAlly Riding joins Senator Hatch\u2019s communications team as Press Secretary.\u00a0Ally most recently worked as a marketing strategist at Fresh Lime in Utah and has previously worked at Mormon.org as a social media representative.\u00a0\r\n \r\nSenator Hatch has had a number of staffers appointed to critical roles in President Trump\u2019s administration and will be saying farewell to his Legislative Director John Tanner, who will be taking over the Legislative Affairs team at the Department of the Interior.\u00a0\r\nHatch\u2019s Judiciary Counsel Ryan Leavitt will be joining the office of newly elected Congressman John Curtis as Deputy Chief of Staff.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=F3436AE6-B0E0-4A02-A289-E9B3E54C9303", "Hatch Opens Historic Tax Reform Hearing, Champions Savings for the Middle Class", "2017-11-13", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u2014 Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened up the Finance Committee hearing by highlighting the benefits of his tax reform proposal, the\u00a0Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This historic legislation will make a number of changes to the current tax system and relieve the tax burden for middle-class families to boost the US economy.\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\u00a0\r\nUnder our bill, a family of four making the US median family income of around $73,000 a year will see their federal income taxes reduced by more than 40 percent.\u00a0In specific dollar terms, that\u2019s a reduction of nearly $1,500 for a single year.\u00a0 That\u2019s about $125 more take-home pay for every month.\u00a0For a single parent making $41,000 a year, they\u2019ll receive a tax cut of more than $1,000, which cuts their overall tax liability by a little more than half.\u00a0That\u2019s real money that will help tens of millions of American families make ends meet, save for the future, or simply improve their quality of life.\u00a0\r\nIn his remarks, Senator Hatch outlined how his proposal will undergo regular order to receive input from Democrats and Republicans alike. Hatch also reiterated that the ultimate goal of his tax plan is the financial advancement of middle-class Americans.\r\n\r\n\r\nThere are many in the middle class who have felt left behind in the sluggish economy under the previous administration, and they feel that they are not being heard.\u00a0 We have an opportunity this week to show that we are listening, that we will act to get the economy moving again to provide better wages, more jobs, and new opportunities for individuals and families in America.\u00a0 We can act by reforming our broken tax code in a manner that will provide a growing economy for the benefit all Americans and tax relief targeted toward the middle class.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThe full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:\r\nToday the committee has before it a chairman\u2019s mark of an original bill entitled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\r\nThis legislation, if enacted, would make a number of important reforms to our nation\u2019s tax system, and relieve the tax burden on American taxpayers, with a focus on middle-class families.\u00a0\r\nToday\u2019s markup is the culmination of a years-long tax reform effort.\u00a0 On this committee, both parties have been engaged in this endeavor, which has included the work of multiple chairmen \u2013 from both sides of the dais \u2013 and almost every member.\u00a0\r\nOur former chairman, Senator Max Baucus, was very much engaged in this effort, as was his counterpart on the Republican side \u2013 another former Chairman, Senator Grassley.\u00a0 Our Ranking Member, Senator Wyden, has also done a great deal of work in this effort, both as previous chairman of the committee and as a long-time committee member.\u00a0 Others who have served on this committee and most of those who are now on the committee have done a great deal of work to advance tax reform.\u00a0\r\nI want to thank all of my colleagues for their work over the years to get us to this point.\u00a0 I\u2019ll have more to say about members\u2019 individual contributions in the coming days.\u00a0\r\nFor now, I\u2019d like to take a few moments to talk about some of the highlights in the bill that is before us today.\r\nFirst and foremost, this legislation will provide much-needed tax relief to American workers and families.\r\nIt reduces rates across the board, particularly for those in the middle class who have struggled to get through the past eight years of economic stagnation.\u00a0\r\nIt provides substantial benefits for parents and families and preserves a number of key elements of our existing tax code.\u00a0\r\nThe bill modifies the bracket schedule, setting up seven separate tax brackets, the lowest at 10 percent, and the highest at 38.5 percent.\u00a0 There\u2019s also an expanded zero tax bracket, meaning more families will see their tax liability eliminated entirely.\u00a0\r\nWhile the unified framework that congressional and administrative leaders released last month envisioned fewer rate brackets, we\u2019ve found that the additional brackets help us to better target tax relief to lower-income Americans and to the middle class.\u00a0\r\nHowever, even with the additional brackets, the system will be much simpler for the vast majority of taxpayers because the bill nearly doubles the standard deduction, up to $12,000 for individuals, $24,000 for married couples, and $18,000 for single parents.\u00a0 This, as I just mentioned, effectively expands the zero tax bracket and reduces the tax burden for millions of families \u2013 removing entirely the tax liability for many others and eliminating their need to itemize deductions.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\r\nAccording to projections, more than 90 percent of taxpayers will use the standard deduction under this plan, in contrast to around 70 percent today, which makes the process of computing and filing one\u2019s taxes a much simpler proposition.\u00a0\r\nThe bill also expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,650 and substantially lifts existing income caps on the credit, allowing many more parents to claim the credit and giving additional tax relief to middle-class families.\u00a0\r\nLet me give a couple of examples of how this will help:\r\nUnder our bill, a family of four making the U.S. median family income of around $73,000 a year will see their federal income taxes reduced by more than 40 percent.\u00a0 In specific dollar terms, that\u2019s a reduction of nearly $1,500 for a single year.\u00a0 That\u2019s about $125 more take-home pay for every month.\u00a0\r\nFor a single parent making $41,000 a year, they\u2019ll receive a tax cut of more than $1,000, which cuts their overall tax liability by a little more than half.\u00a0\r\nThat\u2019s real money that will help a tens of millions of American families make ends meet, save for the future, or simply improve their quality of life.\u00a0\r\nOur bill also preserves the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions.\u00a0 Those are two important provisions that many support and want to keep in place.\u00a0\r\nWe\u2019ve also gotten a number of letters and heard statements from many of our Democratic colleagues urging us to maintain a number of other provisions in the current code.\u00a0\r\nFor example, I received a letter last week signed by 16 Senate Democrats urging us to \u201cprotect existing tax incentives that promote retirement savings among American workers.\u201d\u00a0 Our bill, in accord with the urging of these colleagues, keeps the most popular retirement savings programs \u2013 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts \u2013 fully in place.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nOthers have weighed in on things like the adoption tax credit or the deduction for medical expenses, both of which are unchanged in this legislation.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAnd, we\u2019ve gotten word from colleagues about their desire to keep the Earned Income Tax Credit where it is.\u00a0 Our bill protects that provision as well.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThus far, I\u2019ve only mentioned the individual reforms in the bill.\u00a0 But, if you look at the policies I\u2019ve mentioned, you should notice that they represent ideas that both Republicans and Democrats tend to support.\u00a0\r\nIn fact, our Ranking Member introduced legislation a few years back that would have significantly brought down individual rates across the board \u2013 in a fashion similar to the approach outlined in our framework, I might add \u2013 and nearly tripled the standard deduction.\u00a0 It would have also repealed the alternative minimum tax, as would the bill we\u2019re debating today.\u00a0 In those and other respects, that previous legislation is pretty similar to ours.\u00a0\r\nOn the business side, our bill will permanently lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.\u00a0 The current 35 percent corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world.\u00a0 This is a drag on our economy and is one of a few factors continually chasing companies and economic activity offshore.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nIf this idea sounds familiar, it should.\u00a0 Members of both parties, for years now, have called for lowering the corporate tax rate, recognizing that, by being so out of step with the rest of the industrialized world, we put American companies, the workers they employ, and the customers they serve, at a major disadvantage.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nFor example, in his legislation with former Senator Coats, Senator Wyden proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 24 percent.\u00a0\r\nTwo years ago, our bipartisan working group on business tax, co-chaired by Senators Cardin and Thune, said that business taxes should be lower.\u00a0 In fact, that recommendation was the first principle of business tax reform listed in their report.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nPresident Obama, in one of his later budgets, proposed reducing corporate tax rates to as low as 25 percent for certain sectors.\u00a0\r\nAnd, last year, President Bill Clinton, even as his wife\u2019s presidential campaign was calling for an increase in corporate taxes, said that we should lower our corporate rates to be more on par with our foreign competitors.\u00a0\r\nWe place the rate at 20 percent in our bill, which is slightly below the current average of OECD countries.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nOur bill also lowers the burden on small business through a fairly unique approach.\u00a0\r\nFor pass-through businesses whose income is taxed on individual returns, our bill provides a simple tax deduction for qualified business income, leaving regular compensation to be taxed at the individual rates.\u00a0 The mechanism involved uses existing provisions of the tax code, which businesses are accustomed to dealing with and have a large body of precedent behind them.\u00a0 The mechanism provides firm policing against anyone thinking about mischaracterizing one form of income as another in order to unduly lower their tax bill.\u00a0\r\nOur legislation also expands the availability of cash accounting in order to allow more businesses to simplify their accounting methods.\r\nIt expands Section 179 expensing for small businesses in order to help owners invest and expand their businesses so they can increase productivity and hire more workers.\u00a0 The bill also provides businesses with full and immediate expensing for new equipment; again to enhance productivity, create jobs, and grow wages for American workers.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nFinally, the bill modernizes our archaic international tax system, moving us more toward a territorial tax system.\u00a0 Our current worldwide system is another element of our tax code that chases jobs, economic activity, and investment out of the United States.\u00a0 Under this legislation, American multinationals will be able to bring funds from their foreign subsidiaries back into the U.S. without facing tax liability.\u00a0 That means an end to the \u201clock-out effect,\u201d which, in turn, means more investment, production, and economic growth here in America, which translates into more jobs and better wages for taxpayers.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nTo provide safeguards, our bill also includes provisions to prevent earnings stripping and other practices that erode our tax base.\u00a0\r\nThis is another area where both parties tend to agree.\u00a0 In 2015, for example, a bipartisan working group on international tax reform, which was co-chaired by Senator Portman and the current Senate Minority Leader, assessed the problems with the current international tax system and recommended changes entirely consistent with the ones we\u2019re proposing with this legislation.\u00a0\r\nLong story short: Our proposed international reforms are not just a Republican wish list or some sort of favor to big companies. \u00a0They are, in fact, well within the bipartisan mainstream.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nAll told, the business tax proposals in our bill are designed to grow our economy, increase wages, promote the expansion of businesses, and, of course, create jobs.\u00a0 These sections of our bill will modernize our business tax system, finally updating it for the 21st Century.\r\nThus far, I\u2019ve only gone over some of the highlights of the bill.\u00a0 There\u2019s more about the bill to discuss, which we\u2019ll get to throughout the course of this markup.\u00a0\r\nHowever, before I conclude, I do want to respond in advance to some of the claims we\u2019re certain to hear this week about this legislation.\u00a0 There are a number of myths being spread about this bill and what we intend to accomplish.\u00a0 I want to put some of those to bed right now.\u00a0\r\nFor example, I\u2019m quite certain we\u2019ll hear a lot about supposed process fouls here today.\u00a0 We\u2019ll hear that we\u2019re rushing the bill through committee and that we haven\u2019t had enough hearings.\u00a0 We\u2019ll also likely hear about bills drafted in secret and Democrats being shut out of the process.\r\nLet me set the record straight on these points.\u00a0\r\nUnder no objective standard is this bill being rushed or forced through this committee or through either congressional chamber.\u00a0 As I noted earlier, this committee\u2019s efforts on tax reform go back years.\u00a0 Let me outline some of the work we\u2019ve done to lay the groundwork just since I became the lead Republican on the committee in 2011.\r\nIn that time span, just short of seven years, we\u2019ve held about 70 tax hearings, most of which included in-depth discussions on ways to improve our code.\r\nIn the first year, I was joined by all the Republicans on the committee in submitting 21 pages of tax reform recommendations to the so-called Super Committee.\u00a0 This was the start of laying the groundwork.\r\nChairman Baucus and I, as part of our \u201cblank slate\u201d approach in 2013, produced 10 separate bipartisan options papers discussing concrete policy solutions to fixing our tax code.\r\nAt the end of 2014, I released an extensive report \u2013 more than 300 pages long \u2013 discussing, in some detail, ideas and principles to be considered during the tax reform debate.\r\nThe following year, Senator Wyden and I oversaw the creation of five separate bipartisan working groups, all of whom produced reports, which provided the foundation for even more hearings.\r\nIn other words, we\u2019ve discussed all of these topics at length.\u00a0 We\u2019ll also be walking through the bill as part of this markup.\u00a0 There is, quite simply, no reasonable basis to claim that more hearings, more discussion, and more deliberation have to take place before we can move forward.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nVirtually every proposal contained in the bill has been the subject of public debate for many years.\u00a0 Working with colleagues in Congress and the administration, and after close consultation with committee members, we\u2019ve put together this chairman\u2019s mark.\u00a0 There\u2019s nothing unusual about this process, except that, with other matters, we don\u2019t usually spend so many years of study and discussion before putting a more concrete proposal together.\u00a0\r\nFurthermore, I have personally invited Democrats to participate in this process on a number of occasions, both publicly and privately.\u00a0 I\u2019ve sat in our committee in front of cameras and microphones and asked colleagues to come to the table with objective minds and without preconditions.\u00a0\r\nOur friends on the other side decided it was in their best interest to put some fairly strict preconditions on their involvement.\u00a0 Some of those preconditions did shift a bit over time, like the later retracted, specious demand that President Trump release his tax returns before Democrats would come to the table, an ultimatum made by key members of the Senate Democratic leadership.\u00a0\r\nBut, one precondition that never went away \u2013 and was shared by almost every Democrat in the Senate \u2013 was the demand that Republicans swear off the use of budget reconciliation before any real bipartisan discussions take place.\u00a0 Forty-five Democrats signed a letter in August stating that the public abandonment of budget reconciliation was, in their words, a \u201cprerequisite to any bipartisan tax reform effort.\u201d\u00a0\r\nEssentially, our colleagues demanded that we empower them to kill any potential tax reform bill before they\u2019d even begin talks.\u00a0 That\u2019s not the kind of statement one usually hears from someone who wants to work in good faith toward shared goals.\u00a0\r\nIt\u2019s also at odds with the history of the Senate.\u00a0 Over the years, the Senate has moved many tax bills through reconciliation, and, in almost all cases, the bills ended up getting votes from both parties.\u00a0 Reconciliation in no way precludes the possibility of bipartisanship and Republicans were prepared to follow a similar route with this particular process as was followed in previous tax bills and budget bills.\u00a0\r\nSo, just so everyone is clear, it was the Democrats\u2019 own preconditions that kept them from engaging on tax reform.\u00a0 There was an open seat at the negotiating table, they collectively chose not to sit in it.\u00a0\r\nAnother claim I expect to hear is that our bill is a massive tax cut for the so-called rich.\r\nThis claim is false.\r\nUnder the bill, the top rate will go down by roughly one percentage point.\u00a0 But, the bill repeals a number of tax credits and deductions, many of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, meaning that the slightly lower rates will apply to a larger base of income.\u00a0\r\nThe Joint Committee on Taxation produced a distribution table that clarifies a number of key points, including the fact that Americans in all income categories will receive a tax break under our bill, with the middle class getting a larger percentage of the reductions. JCT also found that our bill will NOT shift the tax burden from the high-end onto taxpayers down in lower brackets.\u00a0 In fact, according to JCT, those with incomes of $1 million a year or more will see their share of the overall tax burden go up.\u00a0\r\nSo, while the bill lowers rates across the board, it actually increases the share of taxes paid by those earning a million dollars or more in annual income.\u00a0\r\nLet me say that again: Our bill increases the share of the overall tax burden paid by millionaires and billionaires.\r\nLet me address another JCT analysis that includes more good news.\u00a0 Some of my colleagues have latched onto a JCT table showing that some percentages of taxpayers in the individual cohorts will see their taxes go up under the bill.\u00a0 I believe the talking point is that 13 million families in the middle class will see their taxes go up next year if the bill becomes law.\u00a0\r\nLet\u2019s set aside the fact that it is virtually impossible to create a tax plan that will impact every taxpayer the same way.\u00a0 And, let\u2019s assume, for the sake of argument, that my colleagues\u2019 estimates, which include virtually no context, are correct.\r\nEven then, the critics of our bill are missing the forest for the trees.\u00a0 They would have the American people believe that the real story is that a relatively small minority of taxpayers could see a slight increase in their taxes, with the biggest portion of overall increases going to upper-middle-class taxpayers.\u00a0 But, to do that, they have to obfuscate the fact that, under that same JCT analysis, about 90 percent of those same middle-class taxpayers are getting a tax cut, or, at the very least, are held harmless under our plan.\u00a0\r\nI know my colleagues prefer to label any Republican tax proposal as a massive tax cut for the rich, but that isn\u2019t the case here.\u00a0 Our bill is primarily focused on tax relief for middle- and lower-income taxpayers.\u00a0 And, the analysis by our non-partisan congressional scorekeeper has confirmed that the legislation we\u2019ve crafted accomplishes that goal.\u00a0\r\nI\u2019m sure we\u2019ll also hear more about tax breaks for big corporations under the bill.\u00a0 Yet, I would think that anyone who has previously gone on record in support of lowering the corporate tax rate will refrain from attacking this bill for doing just that.\u00a0 Of course, I won\u2019t hold my breath on that.\u00a0 But, if that simple baseline of intellectual honesty were to be observed in this markup, most of the Democrats on this committee would be unable to criticize our effort to lower corporate rates as most of them have endorsed a similar approach in the recent past.\u00a0\r\nI\u2019m sure we\u2019ll also hear about the death tax today.\u00a0 But, I hope that, with that discussion, we\u2019ll get an explanation from some of our Democratic colleagues, including my friend, the ranking member, why they are so critical of our efforts to simply mitigate the impact of the death tax when they\u2019ve voted in the past to repeal the tax entirely. I also hope they\u2019ll have an explanation for America\u2019s farmers and businesses for why their deaths should be considered a taxable event when they choose to pass their life\u2019s work, which has already been taxed, at least once already, to the next generation.\u00a0\r\nAnother matter that we\u2019ll likely hear about this week is the state and local tax deduction.\u00a0 I\u2019m sure a number of our Democratic colleagues will argue that the deduction is an absolute necessity. I plan to ask them why they want to forego middle class tax relief in order to preserve a tax deduction that overwhelmingly benefits the taxpayers at the very high end of the income spectrum, particularly after they\u2019ve been publicly lamenting the very idea of cutting taxes for the so-called rich.\u00a0 \u00a0\r\nI could go on here.\u00a0 But, I think my overall point is pretty clear.\u00a0 So far we\u2019ve heard a number of attacks on our tax reform bill that just can\u2019t withstand much objective scrutiny.\u00a0 But, once again, objectivity isn\u2019t really in order these days.\r\nAt this point, one thing should be clear:\u00a0 Our goal with this effort is to provide tax relief and bigger paychecks to low- and middle-income families and to make America a better place to start and grow a business.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThere are many in the middle class who have felt left behind in the sluggish economy under the previous administration, and they feel that they are not being heard.\u00a0 We have an opportunity this week to show that we are listening, that we will act to get the economy moving again to provide better wages, more jobs, and new opportunities for individuals and families in America.\u00a0 We can act by reforming our broken tax code in a manner that will provide a growing economy for the benefit all Americans and tax relief targeted toward the middle class.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nI want to once again thank all of my colleagues for their work to get us this far.\u00a0 I\u2019ll have more to say about their individual efforts in the coming days.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nBut before I conclude, I do want to note something that a few observers have recognized, namely, that the mark, as originally introduced, leaves us with some work to do in order to make the reforms permanent, particularly on the business side where job creators need to be able to plan many years into the future.\u00a0 We are, of course, aware of this problem and are working to ensure that the reduced rates and additional reforms designed to bring investment back to the United States and create more American jobs remain in place past the 10- year budget window.\u00a0\u00a0\r\nThere\u2019s no real cause for concern at this point.\u00a0 But I do want to make clear that we\u2019re looking at a number of alternatives that will fill the necessary gaps and we have every intention of making the business reforms permanent.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=733", "Congresswoman Mia Love Celebrates Veterans Day", "2017-11-09", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY, UT -- Congresswoman Love celebrates November 11th, Veterans Day, as a day our nation appreciates and honors those who have served our nation and their families.\u00a0 However, as an American citizen, her gratitude runs 365 days a year.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cMy family and I give thanks every day for the men and women who serve, and who have served in the past,\u201d Rep. Love said.\u00a0 \u201cIn Congress, I am their advocate. I proudly introduce and support every veteran-related bill that I can in the House. \u00a0We must keep the promises we made to our veterans.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tRep. Love added:\u00a0 \u201cVeterans \u2013 I\u2019ve got your back.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tCongresswoman Love\u2019s support is reflected in her legislative record. Here is a list of all the veteran bills she has sponsored in the 115th Congress Session:\r\n\r\n\tSponsored:\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 1495 \u2013 would end unfair collections practices triggered by a technicality in veterans\u2019 benefits law. This would ensure no families have to endure the hardship of having to return benefits following the death of a loved one.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 2555 - Requires each VA medical facility director to annually certify compliance with scheduling directives, and would make six additional VA Deputy Under-Secretary positions subject to Senate confirmation.\r\n\r\n\tCosponsored:\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 299 - Provides relief to Vietnam Veterans who suffer the effects of being exposed to Agent Orange during Naval service in Vietnam.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 512 \u2013 Allows veterans to permit authorized Congressional staff to access their records in the databases of the Veterans Benefits Administration for the purpose of assisting in claims processes.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 632 \u2013 Would designate veterans who participated in nuclear cleanup work on the Marshall Islands as \u201cradiation-exposed veterans\u201d, making them eligible to receive the same healthcare and benefits given to other service members who were involved in nuclear tests.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 846 - This legislation would eliminate the so-called \u201cwidow\u2019s tax,\u201d which is a policy that requires the surviving spouses of members killed in the line of duty or from a service-connected cause to forfeit the Survivor Benefit Pension annuity.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 1005 \u2013 This bill would ensure service members who are 70% or more disabled from a service connected injury can receive Adult Day Health Care at any State Veterans Home across the United States.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 1058 - This bill would include podiatrists in the VA\u2019s definition of \u201cphysician\u201d and provide better foot care for our vets.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 2519 \u2013 directs the U.S. mint to produce a commemorative, limited edition coin that would raise funds for important causes to veterans.\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 3018 - This legislation is designed to help veterans transition to the civilian workforce and expand the career paths that are available to them\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H. Con. Res. 45 - The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that those who served in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 9, 1962 \u2013 May 7, 1975, should be presumed to have been exposed to the toxin Agent Orange and should be eligible for all related Federal benefits associated with the Agent Orange Act of 1991\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 1928 \u2013 Ensures the immediate payment of military death benefits to survivors of fallen servicemembers during federal government shutdowns or any time federal spending lapses\r\n\r\n\t\u00b7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 H.R. 3832 \u2013 Aims to reduce opioid addiction by directing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin to connect VA health care providers to a national network of state-based prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). PDMPs track prescribing data to identify abuse patterns in patient.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=62B06A10-A6F4-42E8-90FE-FCB6EB7ACD26", "Hatch Bill Promoting Better Care for Veterans Passes in the Senate", "2017-11-09", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, DC\u2014\u00a0Today, the State Veterans Home Adult Day Health Care Improvement Act, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), passed in the Senate. This critical veterans\u2019 affairs legislation will enable more veterans to live at a home with a caregiver instead of being institutionalized in a nursing home. Hatch\u2019s bill will also cut costs and increase the standard of living for veterans needing specialized medical assistance.\r\n\u201cI am honored to work in behalf of the many veterans in the great state of Utah and the country,\u201d\u00a0Hatch said.\u00a0\u201cThese heroic men and women and their families deserve our steadfast support. My bill would allow qualifying veterans to receive the care they need while also giving them flexibility to live at home and remain connected to their friends, family, and communities. I call on my colleagues in the House to quickly send this bill to the President\u2019s desk, so he can sign it into law for the betterment of our brave veterans.\u201d\r\nStatements of Support\r\nGary Harter, Executive Director, Utah Department of Veterans and Military Affairs:\r\n\u201cWe are grateful to Senator Hatch for taking on this important issue. This legislation will provide Utah\u2019s veterans with the services they need and deserve while still maintaining their independence. Utah\u2019s four state veterans homes would benefit greatly from this legislation. Most importantly this is great for Utah\u2019s veterans.\u201d\r\nSharon Murphy, President, NASVH:\r\n\u201cThe National Association of State Veterans Homes is thrilled about the passage of this legislation because it helps our most disabled veterans, as well as their caregivers, in order for them to receive the essential services they deserve without the burden of institutionalization.\u201d\u00a0\r\nTerry Schow, Retired Director, Utah Department of Veterans Affairs:\r\n\u201cSenator Hatch is always a true champion for veterans. I am thrilled that S. 324 passed the Senate. This important legislation will give our veterans the opportunity to receive the care they need and deserve, while still allowing them the comfort of living at home and staying connected with their families.\u201d\r\nBackground\r\n \r\nThis bill,\u00a0S. 324, would allow qualifying veterans (70 percent or more service-connected disabled) to receive adult-day medical model care.\r\nBenefits:\r\n\r\nAllows veterans to receive the same care as living in a nursing home while allowing them to live at home and stay connected with their families.\r\nProvides respite for veterans\u2019 families while veterans are at daily care for up to eight hours a day.\r\nProvides respite for caregivers that are currently administering 24-hour care for veterans living at home.\r\n\r\nHealth professionals and policy experts agree that when it comes to long-term care, adult day healthcare costs less and supports an equal or higher standard of living compared to nursing home care.\r\nThis bill is supported by\u00a0The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Air Force Association, and the National Association of State Veterans Homes.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=946B3D6E-DB10-4CDB-97FE-30436741AF19", "Hatch Tax Plan Will Save an Average Middle-Class Family $1,500 Annually", "2017-11-09", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, DC\u2014Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, his proposal for comprehensive tax reform based on the unified framework put together by Hatch, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Trump administration. The legislation will update the US tax code, and provide tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses in Utah and around the country. Estimates show this bill could save a typical US family of four up to $1,500 annually (more details to come throughout the afternoon).\r\n\r\n[Video via YouTube]\r\nThe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will bring our outdated tax code into the 21st century and provide much-needed tax relief for hardworking American families and small businesses. Our tax reform package will unleash the American economy, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and greater investment here at home. Passing tax reform is more important now than ever. The cost of doing nothing would be too much for the American people to bare.\r\nNow, after nearly a decade of stagnant wages and sluggish economic growth, we finally have a President who is serious about working to ensure that we have a tax code that actually works for the American people.\r\nBackground\r\nThe Tax Cuts and Job Act:\u00a0\r\n \r\nLowers individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans by affectively expanding the zero tax bracket and maintaining a 10 percent bracket, allowing hardworking taxpayers to keep more of the hard-earned money, make ends meet, and save for retirement. The bill includes a reformed rate structure that targets tax relief to the middle class while maintaining the existing tax distribution, and a 38.5 percent bracket for high-income earners.\r\nNearly doubles the standard deduction to reduce or eliminate the federal income tax burden for tens of millions of American families. The standard deduction will increase from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples. For single parents, the standard deduction will increase from $9,300 to $18,000.\r\nRecognizes the unique challenges faced by parents with young children by:\r\n\r\nExpanding the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,650 and allowing many more parents to claim the credit by substantially lifting caps;\r\nPreserving the child and dependent care tax credit to help working parents care for their children and older dependents\u2014such as an aging grandparent\u2014who need support;\r\nPreserving the adoption tax credit to help families with the high costs of adopting children; and\r\nAllowing parents to more effectively save for the education costs of unborn children.\r\n\r\nPreserves the deduction for charitable contributions, continuing a long recognition of the importance of private philanthropy for the churches and community organizations that daily provide aid and assistance to those in need.\r\nProtects the home mortgage interest deduction for existing mortgages and maintains the deduction for newly purchased homes up to $1 million. This incentive for homeownership provides tax relief to current and aspiring homeowners.\r\nContinues popular retirement savings programs, such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts, to help Americans build their retirement nest eggs and prepare for the future.\r\n \r\n\u00a0\u00a0(Download full Policy Highlights document here)", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=326F5E2C-9995-4425-97C7-CA68D87EEAB2", "November 9, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Tooele County", "2017-11-09", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "What: Mobile Office Visit to Wendover  When: Thursday November 9th, 2017 @ 3:00 PM \u2013 4:30 PM  Where: Wendover Community Center, 112 E Moriah Ave., Wendover, UT 84083", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=A9242510-BE21-412D-9D72-E0650B054929", "Sens. Lee, Rubio Release Statement on Senate Tax Plan", "2017-11-09", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) released the following statement today in response to the Senate Finance Committee unveiling their tax reform proposal: \"We appreciate all of the work our colleagues have done to draft the Senate tax bill, and the progress for tax reform that it represents. While we are glad to see an increase to the child tax credit, like the House bill, it is simply not enough for working families.\r\n\u201cWe continue to believe that the best way to provide real relief to working families is through a straightforward, significant, and permanent expansion of the child tax credit \u2014 preferably doubling the credit to $2,000 per child and expanding its applicability to payroll taxes. The Senate is not going to pass a bill that isn\u2019t clearly pro-family, so we look forward to working with our colleagues to get there.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=C2CB65F7-2209-4538-AFAD-B60F68A400F3", "A Necessary Turning Point on Judicial Confirmations", "2017-11-08", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "By Senator Orrin G. Hatch\r\nNovember 8, 2017\r\nhttp://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/judicial-nominees-hatch-democrats\u00a0\r\nThere are few duties of the United States Senate as solemn, and as consequential, as the consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees. Attention in the media is often focused on the Supreme Court, and for good reason, given how powerful the Supreme Court remains.\u00a0\r\nBut also critical are federal circuit court judges, as they will provide the last word on the thousands of important cases (nearly 99 percent of all appealed) which never make it to the highest court.\r\nAt times of great controversy, at times of political upheaval or uncertainty, our courts stand as the final bulwark, defending individual liberty and assuring that government remains constrained by the limits imposed by the Constitution. And because\u00a0Article III judges\u00a0serve for life, their impact will persist far beyond the tenure of any one administration or any one session of Congress.\r\nLast\u00a0week, my colleagues and I undertook a historic effort to confirm judicial nominations submitted to us by President Donald Trump. In 2016, Republicans made a promise to the American people: If elected, we would move expeditiously to confirm qualified judges, committed to the rule of law and determined to right the course of judicial activism all too prevalent over the last eight years. With the confirmation of four highly qualified circuit court nominees, we continued in the work to fulfill that promise.\r\nDemocratic pushback\r\nThat effort has been undertaken, however, against constant and unflinching opposition from Democrats in the Senate. In every way conceivable, they have made the work of confirming judges more difficult. As everyone recognizes, the Constitution gives the power to nominate and appoint judges to the President, and it gives the power to confirm to the Senate. Rather than working with us, the Democrats in the Senate have proven consistent obstructionists.\r\nFirst, obstruction has been offered in the form of what\u2019s called the blue slip. Traditionally, the blue slip process has been used to assure consultation between the White House and home state senators of judicial nominees. Democrats and their grass-roots and media allies, however, are demanding that the blue slip process be used as a single-senator veto. They insist that a single home-state senator be able, at any time and for any reason, to stop a nomination dead in its tracks without any Judiciary Committee consideration at all.\r\nI can understand why they want to weaponize the blue slip like this. After all, they once used the filibuster to prevent confirmation of Republican judges, but then abolished nomination filibusters so that no one else could use it. Democrats are today trying to turn the blue slip into a de facto filibuster. They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor.\r\nThe next obstruction weapon of choice has been completely unnecessary delays on the floor of the Senate. Democrats have done everything they can to slow the procedures necessary to get to a roll call vote. For context, before 2001, only\u00a01 percent of judicial nominees with no opposition were confirmed by a time-consuming roll call vote. Under President George W. Bush, that figure jumped to 56 percent. Before 2001, there had been four filibusters of judicial nominees, and no majority-supported judicial nominee had ever been defeated by a filibuster. Under President George W. Bush, Democrats conducted 20 filibusters and ultimately kept multiple appeals court nominees from being confirmed.\r\nDelays like this continue to this day. In July, we held another unnecessary cloture vote on a district court nominee. After voting 97-0 to end a debate that no one apparently wanted in the first place, Democrats forced us to delay the confirmation vote by two more days. This was the first time in history that a unanimous cloture vote was not followed immediately by a confirmation vote. It could have taken a few hours, but instead took two weeks from the filing of a cloture motion to the final unanimous confirmation vote.\r\nDelaying tactics\r\nWhat was the point of all that? It\u2019s simple. Democrats want to make confirming President Trump\u2019s judicial nominees as cumbersome and time-consuming as possible.\r\nAt this point in President\u00a0Barack Obama\u2019s first year, when Republicans were in the minority, the Senate took cloture votes on fewer than\u00a01 percent of the executive and judicial branch nominees we confirmed. This year, with Democrats in the minority playing confirmation spoiler, the Senate has been forced to take cloture votes on more than 27 percent of the nominees we confirmed. In fact, including those we will take this week, Democrats have forced us to take 51 cloture votes on President Trump\u2019s nominees so far this year. That is seven times as many as during the combined first years of all nine presidents since the cloture rule has applied to nominations.\r\nLest we forget, in 2013 Democrats abolished the ability of 41 senators to prevent confirmation. Today, they are demanding the ability of one senator to prevent confirmation. If that is not an abuse of the confirmation ground rules, it\u2019s hard to tell what is.\r\nRecently, I have taken to the floor to denounce these dilatory tactics by the Democrats. As I argued during past administrations of both parties, nominees should be debated and processed based on the merits, not tit-for-tat political games. Last week, the Republicans in the Senate showed that we plan to get this job done, one way or the other.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=61B9F517-2564-4379-82BD-7A7467EB8ADF", "Hatch Statement on Utah Unveiling of DEA 360 Program", "2017-11-08", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C.\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leader in the fight against opioid abuse, issued a statement today on the DEA\u2019s announcement.\r\n\u201cAfter months of effort, I\u2019m thrilled that the DEA has accepted my recommendation to launch the DEA 360 Program in Utah. The gravity of the opioid epidemic in Utah cannot be overstated. Consider that each week, we lose six Utahns to opioid overdose\u2014a number that has increased 400 percent in the last fifteen years. The goal of DEA 360 is simple: Stop the deadly cycle of heroin and opioid pill abuse by eliminating drug trafficking organizations, partnering with the medical community to raise awareness, and strengthening local organizations to build drug-free communities. I believe it will be an incredibly effective strategy in our fight against this devastating opioid epidemic.\u201d\r\nDEA Agent Brian Besser, who is leading the implementation effort, also noted, \u201cDEA has deployed this strategy with great success in eight other cities\u2014cities like St. Louis, Milwaukee, Louisville, Pittsburgh, just to name a few. However, this is going to be the first DEA 360 strategy deployed for a state.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=52D64F5A-9DA6-47E3-AC61-CC996B4D2C56", "Sens. Lee, Paul, King, Crapo, Merkley Request Defunding of Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion", "2017-11-08", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) joined with Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Angus King (I-VT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Tom Udall (D-NM) in sending a letter to Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, requesting he defund the Department of Justice\u2019s reinstated expansion of civil asset forfeiture practices. The letter reads, in part: \u201cAdoptive forfeiture and equitable sharing are particularly egregious elements of civil asset forfeiture because they not only violate due process but also attack principals of federalism. DOJ\u2019s reinstated policy allows state law enforcement officers to circumvent state limitations on civil forfeiture by turning seized property over to federal officials for forfeiture in exchange for up to 80% of the proceeds of the property. This perversely incentivizes local law enforcement to confiscate suspect property even where state laws forbid the practice.\u201d The full letter and online version of this release can be viewed here.\r\nCivil Asset Forfeiture Letter by Senator Mike Lee", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=CFADD588-63B6-48CD-9076-3D7E6398CCAF", "Sens. Lee, Leahy Support USA Liberty Act", "2017-11-08", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON - Today, the House Judiciary committee reported the USA Liberty Act to the House floor with 27-8 support. The bill is sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and the legislation reauthorizes and reforms Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendment Act. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) partnered with these House colleagues last year to pass the USA FREEDOM act, which ended NSA bulk metadata collection and contained significant reforms to other surveillance authorities. Sens. Lee and Leahy released the following statement regarding today\u2019s passage of the USA Liberty Act: \u201cWe applaud the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers for advancing legislation that would reauthorize Section 702 surveillance authorities with some important improvements. The bill codifies an end to \u201cabout\u201d collection, closes a loophole that allows this national security tool to be used for standard domestic criminal investigations without a warrant, and contains many other provisions to protect the privacy and civil liberty interests of Americans. This bill is part of a promising, bipartisan effort to provide some long-overdue reforms to this surveillance authority. Just as we did last Congress, we are working with both House Judiciary Committee leaders as well as with leading voices in the Senate, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, to introduce our own strong reform bill in the Senate in the near term.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/socialcapitalproject?ContentRecord_id=86C368CE-3E73-4F2E-88F3-DB70756199C1", "The Class Divide in Marriage", "2017-11-08", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "The American Enterprise Institute recently published a new report by Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang that highlights the class divide in American marriage. As the authors explain, prior to the 1970s family life looked similar across socioeconomic levels, but today there are stark divides across class when it comes to marriage, divorce, and unwed childbearing.\r\nThe authors show that poor and working-class Americans are much less likely than their middle- and upper-income peers to marry or remain married. They are also far more likely to have children outside of marriage, such that unwed childbearing has become the norm among the poor and increasingly common among the working class. Middle- and upper-income Americans, on the other hand, nearly always wait until marriage to have children. (The authors define \u2018poor\u2019 as those with less than a high school education or a those with a family income below the 20th percentile; \u2018working class\u2019 refers to those with only a high school education or some college, or with income between the 20th and 50th percentiles; and \u2018middle and upper class\u2019 are those with a college degree or an income above the 50th percentile.)\r\n\r\n  \r\nThe result of the marriage divide is increased disadvantage along several dimensions. Poor and working-class children\u2014and their parents\u2014not only have lower household incomes, but they also fail to benefit from the resources marriage can provide: economies of scale and shared parenting, for example. Children in single-parent households are far more likely to experience poverty and on average are at a greater risk for a variety of negative outcomes. As we show in our recent report on the opioid epidemic, among less educated men, those who are single are much more likely to die of an opioid overdose.\r\nThe explanation for the widening economic divide in marriage can\u2019t be explained solely by changes in the economy.\r\nOne common argument is that the decline of U.S. manufacturing employment in the 1970s resulted in fewer jobs for non-college educated men, which decreased their marriageability and drove down marriage rates for this group, thus increasing family instability. However, as Wilcox and Wang note, economic changes fail to account for other eras of American history that have experienced economic decline\u2014most notably the Great Depression of the 1930s\u2014without experiencing the drastic changes that have taken place in the last 50 or so years.\r\nFurthermore, marriage continued to decline even during economic booms. The authors point to the 1990s as an example, but could also have cited researchers Melissa S. Kearny and Riley Wilson who recently found that areas of the U.S. that experienced rapid employment growth for non-college educated men due to the fracking boom did not see increased marriage rates.\r\nInstead, Wilcox and Wang note that \u201ca series of interlocking economic, policy, civic, and cultural changes since the 1960s in America combined to create a perfect family storm for poor and working-class Americans.\u201d They note that cultural factors in particular have affected lower-income Americans to a greater degree for a few reasons. Perhaps most notably, they point out that the breakdown of norms about dating, sex, marriage, and childbearing have made relationship decisions more complicated for everyone. But middle- and upper-class Americans have more cultural and educational resources to help them traverse these complexities\u2014or they may simply feel in greater control over their lives\u2014and thus are better able to make such decisions with a longer time horizon than are their lower-income peers.\r\nWilcox and Wang also hypothesize that because working-class and poor Americans don\u2019t have as large an economic or social stake in marriage, cultural norms are more significant for maintaining their marriages. For example, the authors point to homeownership as a barrier against divorce. But because poor and lower-income Americans are less likely to own a home, the authors note, there are \u201cfewer reasons to avoid divorce.\u201d\r\nWhile it makes sense that having greater assets connected to marriage would provide a barrier to divorce, it also seems plausible that a working class couple would have substantial financial reasons to avoid divorce. Staying married could mean the difference between remaining afloat financially and falling into a precarious economic situation where each parent now must maintain their own separate household.\r\nAnother reason that the authors include for increased family instability among poor and working-class Americans are the marriage penalties of the means-tested welfare system. For example, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) penalize marriage (among dozens of other means-tested welfare programs that all essentially penalize marriage). This is because when a couple marries, their income is counted together but the household income threshold for benefits remains the same\u2014effectively decreasing the amount of welfare benefits the household is eligible to receive. For example, a single mother of two children with annual earnings of $15,000 would receive about $5,200 in food stamp benefits annually, but if she marries a man who also earns $15,000, they would no longer be eligible for SNAP.\r\nFinally, the authors point to the increased disconnection of poor and working-class Americans to social networks and organizations that have traditionally served to strengthen marriage\u2014in particular, churches. While church attendance has become less common among all Americans, it has particularly declined among the poor and working class. Church attendance is linked with higher marital quality and a lower likelihood of divorce.\r\nRegardless of the marriage divide, the vast majority of unmarried Americans across socioeconomic levels want to get married. However, a large portion of Americans are not getting or staying married. The middle- and upper-class reap the benefits of this vital institution, while the poor and working-class are further disadvantaged for its weakness.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-bill-seeks-transfer-land-hyde-park-ut", "Bishop Bill Seeks to Transfer Land to Hyde Park, UT", "2017-11-07", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Rob Bishop", "B001250", "robbishop.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has introduced the Hyde Park Land Conveyance Act which directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 80 acres of BLM land to the City of Hyde Park, UT. Rep. Bishop issued the following statement:\nThis common-sense transfer is a win for all involved. The city of Hyde Park will be able to further pursue its community goals, and the federal government will be free of a burden it shouldnt be shouldering. This is something that should have been done over three decades ago. \nBACKGROUND: In 1985, the United States Department of the Interior determined that an isolated tract of Bureau of Land Management land in Cache County, UT was eligible for disposal The decision document states that, due to its location, size, and lack of access, this parcel is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another federal department or agency. In the subsequent 32 years since the Interior decision, this land has remained the responsibility of the BLM which has a backlogged deferred maintenance burden of ~$810 million. Hyde Park City welcomes the transfer and is supportive of this legislation.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-stewart-polis-senators-flake-heinrich-introduce-bipartisan", "Reps. Stewart, Polis, Senators Flake, Heinrich Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Complete Parks, Wilderness Areas and Increase Revenues for Schools", "2017-11-07", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2013 Today, Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced H.R. 4257, the Advancing Conservation and Education (ACE) Act. The bipartisan legislation aims at facilitating state trust land exchanges for parcels locked inside designated wilderness and other federal conservation areas. The ACE Act helps equalize funding for education in public lands states by enhancing the revenue-generating capacity of lands designated for the purpose of funding education.\n\u201cThis legislation is a win for Utah, a win for school kids, and a win for conservation,\u201d said Rep. Stewart. \u201cExchanging state inholding for land outside of protected areas will allow states to generate more revenue, provide increased protection, and help support rural economies. The ACE Act proves we can come together to solve complex public land issues.\u201d\n\u201cI am pleased that we can collaborate on common sense legislation together as Democrats and Republicans in both the House of Representatives and Senate. By cutting red tape between state land trusts and the federal government, we can protect our most precious wilderness areas, while generating more revenue for local governments and schools that desperately need it,\u201d said Rep. Polis.\n\u201cInholdings present challenges for both public land managers and state trust land commissioners because differing policies and missions of the respective agencies can lead to conflicts over management. By exchanging state inholdings for land outside of protected areas that is more appropriate for development and more likely to produce revenue, the ACE Act will solidify protections for designated areas like national parks and wilderness while increasing revenues for state trust land beneficiaries like schools and hospitals,\u201d\u00a0said Sen. Heinrich. \u201cI'm proud to partner with Senator Flake to find bipartisan and pragmatic solutions that will increase revenues for our public schools and improve access to the outdoor places Westerners hold dear.\u201d\u00a0\n\u201cThis bill represents an absolute win-win situation. It makes management of federal land more efficient, while providing additional revenue for state land trusts and schools. These are two worthwhile goals that when combined represent a genuine opportunity for those in the West,\u201d said Sen. Flake.\u00a0\nThe ACE Act has diverse support, including from the Western States Land Commissioners Association and The Wilderness Society.\n\u201cThe ability of our state land commissioners to utilize state trust lands to raise revenue for education is made more difficult when these trust lands are surrounded by federal conservation areas. The ACE Act is a win-win solution that will help our land commissioners better generate badly needed funds for schoolchildren while completing federal conservation areas so that they can be properly protected,\u201d said Harry Birdwell, President, Western States Land Commissioners Association and Secretary of the Commissioners, Oklahoma Land Office.\n\u201cThis legislation will better secure America's parks and wilderness while supporting rural economies and providing revenue for schools. Through this bill, our public lands will be better protected and school kids will come out ahead,\u201d said Paul Spitler, Director of Wilderness Policy at The Wilderness Society.\nThe full text of the bill can be found 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=8D1BB69B-D392-466F-A9B1-67111A312810", "Sen. Lee Demands Transparency from CBO on Health Care and Taxes", "2017-11-07", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Tuesday after hearing reports that the Congressional Budget Office was in the process of changing its health care model to show that repealing the individual mandate would save significantly less money than the agency claimed just a few months ago during the heath care debate:\u00a0\u201cI feel like I\u2019m trapped in a game of Calvinball,\u201d Sen. Lee said. \u201cJust a few months ago the CBO had us playing by one set of rules for debating health care policy and now we are being told those rules have been completely changed for tax policy. This is simply unacceptable and it is why Congress must pass the CBO Show Your Work Act of 2017.\u201d\u00a0The CBO Show Your Act would require the CBO to publish its data, models, and all details of computation used in its cost analysis and scoring. CBO would keep its role as official scorekeeper of congressional budget proposals \u2013 but now the American people and the economic community would be able to see what\u2019s going on in all those spreadsheets and algorithms.\u00a0The CBO Show Your Work Act of 2017 has 14 co-sponsors including, Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK),\u00a0 Ron Johnson (R-WI), James Lankford (R-OK), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Perdue (R-GA), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=13902A81-08A9-4E01-97B0-582C50D98808", "In Utah, the Federal Government Puts Prairie Dogs Over People", "2017-11-06", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "In southwestern Utah, federal regulations are artificially pitting people against prairie dogs\u2014to neither\u2019s benefit. There are about 80,000 Utah prairie dogs in the region, and the species is listed as threatened. State biologists would like to move the creatures from backyards and playgrounds to public conservation lands, but that\u2019s forbidden under federal rules. The result of the regulations has been conflict but little progress toward lasting recovery for the species.\r\nFor years, towns like Cedar City have been stuck in what Greg Sheehan, principal deputy director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has called \u201ca quagmire of federal bureaucracy.\u201d Washington\u2019s heavy-handed regulations make it a crime for these Utahns to do things that the rest of us take for granted, like building homes in residential neighborhoods or starting small businesses. Cedar City can\u2019t even protect its playgrounds, airport and cemetery from the disruptive, tunneling rodent.\r\nTired of being ignored, local residents banded together to form People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners. The group, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit in 2013 arguing that the federal regulations were unconstitutional. Where did Congress get the power to pass such intrusive rules? Whenever this kind of question arises, the stock answer is the Constitution\u2019s Commerce Clause, which allows lawmakers to regulate commerce \u201camong the several States.\u201d But this species of prairie dog is found only in Utah, and it has no conceivable connection to interstate commerce.\r\nIn 2014 a federal district court agreed, striking down the regulations as unconstitutional. \u201cIf Congress could use the Commerce Clause to regulate anything that might affect the ecosystem (to say nothing about its effect on commerce), there would be no logical stopping point to congressional power,\u201d wrote Judge Dee Benson.\r\nAs the residents of Cedar City cheered, the state of Utah began work on a plan that would be better for people and prairie dogs alike. The central component was for biologists to relocate the rodents to lands where they could be permanently protected.\r\nConflict gave way to real conservation. In 2010 the prairie dog population had been estimated at 40,000, but the figure has since doubled, providing the highest count since surveys began in the 1970s. \u201cIt was a win-win for everyone,\u201d Mr. Sheehan said this summer, when he was still head of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. \u201cLocal communities, local governments, and private landowners were happy. And Utah prairie dogs have never done better.\u201d\r\nSadly, this proved to be only the beginning of the story. The federal government appealed Judge Benson\u2019s ruling, arguing that the Commerce Clause could be stretched to reach noneconomic activities that affect any species. This summer, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Benson, putting the restriction on moving prairie dogs back into place. Once again it is a crime for state biologists to do what is best for the species.\r\nIn its ruling, the appeals court embraced a theory of federal power beyond any the Supreme Court has ever accepted. It held that if Congress adopts a \u201ccomprehensive scheme\u201d to address some issue, then any regulation that furthers that purpose is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, even if it is unrelated to commerce. Were that theory to prevail, there would be no limit to what Washington could regulate.\r\nBut People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners did not give up. In September, the organization filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. We urge the justices to do so, not only to restore the state conservation plan but also to vindicate constitutional limits on federal power. This week, 23 states, led by Utah, filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling for the justices to take the case.\r\nUtah\u2019s two senators\u2014 Mike Lee (one of the authors here) and Orrin Hatch \u2014have introduced a bill called the Native Species Protection Act. It would reform the Endangered Species Act and return to states the responsibility of protecting animals found in only one state and having nothing to do with interstate commerce. The bill calls on Congress to respect and abide by the Constitution\u2019s limits, to restore Utah\u2019s ability to pursue real recovery of its prairie dogs, and to give other states the same opportunity.\u00a0\r\nAs Utah has shown, states are well equipped to protect threatened species. State biologists and officials have more local knowledge and are more accountable than far-off regulators. The Supreme Court and Congress should restore federalism to its rightful place and enforce the Commerce Clause\u2019s intended limits. Utah\u2019s prairie dogs and countless other species depend on it.\r\nOp-ed originally published in the Wall Street Journal", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=E8B4382A-AB63-4938-A38D-FD6B4C6E4D07", "The social element of the opioid crisis", "2017-11-06", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Editor's note: The statistics referenced in this article are published as part of Sen. Lee's\u00a0Social Capital Project.\r\nThe United States has suffered through opioid crises before but never like this.\r\nFirst in the 1970s and then in the 1990s, opioid-related deaths spiked across the country, but the current crisis is bigger \u2014 much bigger.\r\nIn 2016, approximately 64,000 people died from drug overdoses, surpassing all-time death rates for car crashes, HIV and guns. Two-thirds of those 64,000 deaths were caused by opioids.\r\nThese are just some of the data points our team at the Joint Economic Committee uncovered in its latest Social Capitol Project report, \u201cThe Numbers Behind the Opioid Crisis.\u201d\r\nOne reason for the severity of this crisis, our research finds, is that this time, Americans can buy opioids legally. In the 1960s, four out of five heroin addicts began their addictions with heroin. But this time, three out of four heroin addicts either obtained their opioids through a doctor or someone else\u2019s prescription. Drugs obtained freely from friends and family with legal prescriptions account for 40 percent of prescription opioids taken by opioid abusers.\r\nNot only are opioids legal to buy this time around, but most of the time they are also free for the user \u2014 another person, usually the taxpayer, picks up the bill. In 2010, patients paid just 19 percent of the cost of opioids purchased in the United States. Insurance companies paid 25 percent, Medicare paid 26 percent, Medicaid paid 13 percent and other government programs paid 16 percent.\r\nThese third-party payments helped fuel an explosion in opioid prescriptions. By 2016, nearly 215 million prescriptions were filled for 61.8 million patients, or nearly one-fifth of the population. Patients have been showered with pain pills: In 2015, doctors prescribed almost enough opioids in the median U.S. county to give each resident a two-week supply.\r\nThe fallout from this drug explosion has been staggering. Opioid-related deaths have quadrupled since 1999. Between 2015 and 2016 alone, deaths from synthetic opioids more than doubled. Here in Utah, the opioid death rate increased by 118 percent while suburban emergency rooms saw a 171 percent increase in opioid-related visits.\r\nUnfortunately, it appears the worst of this crisis is yet to come. While abuse of prescription opioids seems to be falling with a recent drop in opioid prescription rates, deaths from prescription opioids continue to rise. Users also appear to be switching to even stronger narcotics. Early 2016 data suggest that fentanyl \u2014 a synthetic drug 25 to 50 times more powerful than heroin \u2014 has surpassed heroin in overdose deaths, skyrocketing 540 percent in three years.\r\nThese deaths have not been evenly distributed. Some populations have been harder hit than others.\r\nThose with no more than a high school education make up just 40 percent of the population in the United States, but in 2015, they accounted for 68 percent of opioid-related deaths.\r\nNever-married and divorced Americans make up just 32 percent of the population, but in 2015, they accounted for 71 percent of all opioid-related deaths.\r\nAnd single men with just a high school education have an opioid death rate almost three times higher than single women with the same education.\r\nClearly, there is a strong social component to our opioid crisis. Individuals who do not have a strong family or good job appear to be much more at risk of succumbing to addiction.\r\nAs we look for ways to solve this crisis, we should keep these social components in mind. More research is needed, but it does appear that loving families help addicts recover from addiction. More importantly, families appear to be a strong defense against becoming addicted in the first place.\r\nOp-Ed originally published in the Deseret News", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=C5C48738-C9ED-4758-BE54-D68E71CA73CF", "TONIGHT: Hatch to Receive Liberator Award for Efforts to End Human Trafficking", "2017-11-04", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Orrin Hatch", "H000338", "www.hatch.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "SALT LAKE CITY\u2014Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, will receive Operation Underground Railroad\u2019s Liberator Award at OUR\u2019s Shine OUR Light gala this evening.\r\nDue to the Senate\u2019s weekend work schedule, Senator Hatch is unable to attend the event in person but sent the following video which will be displayed at the gala.\r\n\r\n\r\nVideo Via DropBox\r\nSenator Hatch spoke of his work to end human trafficking, including legislation he sponsored to facilitate increased cooperation between the federal government and groups like O.U.R.\r\nAs you may know, I have worked with O.U.R. to pass legislation in the Senate facilitating more collaboration between groups like O.U.R. and the federal government. You all are on the front lines in the battle against modern slavery, and I want you to have every resource at your disposal. My bill will ensure that you do.\r\nHatch also spoke about a briefing he hosted in Washington just weeks ago for Ivanka Trump and his fellow Senator\u2019s, with OUR\u2019s Tim Ballard. You can find pictures and video from that briefing here.\r\n\r\n\r\nB-roll video and photos from the briefing can be found here\r\nLast week, I invited a number of my Senate colleagues and Ivanka Trump\u2014the White House\u2019s point person on trafficking issues\u2014to sit down with Tim and have a conversation about ways we can do more to help.\r\nWe left with a number of action items, and I believe this is just the beginning of a collaboration that will bring about real change.\r\nSenator Hatch\u2019s full remarks:\r\nI\u2019m thrilled to receive this award tonight, and I apologize I couldn\u2019t be with you in person. The Senate is holding a rare weekend session to accomplish a number of important things by the end of the year.\r\nI\u2019ve been honored to work with O.U.R. over the last few years in our shared goal of ending human trafficking.\r\nAs you may know, I have worked with O.U.R. to pass legislation in the Senate facilitating more collaboration between groups like O.U.R. and the federal government. You all are on the front lines in the battle against modern slavery, and I want you to have every resource at your disposal. My bill will ensure that you do.\r\nLast week, I invited a number of my Senate colleagues and Ivanka Trump\u2014the White House\u2019s point person on trafficking issues\u2014to sit down with Tim and have a conversation about ways we can do more to help.\r\nWe left with a number of action items, and I believe this is just the beginning of a collaboration that will bring about real change.\r\nI\u2019m so grateful for all you do, and I\u2019m inspired by your work. You give people hope, you give people life, and you are changing the world for the better.\r\nPlease keep it up, and know that you will always have a friend in this old Senator.\r\n\u00a0\r\nBackground on the Liberator Award (Via OUR)\r\nThe Liberator Award is given to an individual who has displayed the courage and determination to make a significant impact in the effort to fight human trafficking. Someone who has gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking, or who has made great strides to affect positive change regarding this horrible crime within the Hotel Industry.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=730", "Statement on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Introduced in the House", "2017-11-03", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "\"The \u2018Tax Cuts and Jobs Act\u2019, is a tax plan that will put more money in Utahn\u2019s pockets, create more jobs, and close loopholes for the rich. Some of the most important benefits for Utah families are the lowering of individual tax rates; the near doubling of the standard deduction, from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples and $6350 to $12,000 for single earners; and the creation of a new Family Credit, which includes an expansion of the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600. I\u2019m excited that this will be accomplished by maintaining the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and by allowing people to keep investing in their 401(k)\u2019s. This is the kind of progress that working Utahns deserve, and I will continue to work to defend their interests.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=731", "Letter to VA Secretary", "2017-11-03", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "This week, Congresswoman Mia Love sent a letter to David Shulkin, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), requesting that the Department take action to address nonpayment problems plaguing the Veteran\u2019s Choice Program. You can read the full letter below.\r\n\r\n\tThe Choice Program was created to expand access to medical coverage for Veterans by allowing them to seek care with community providers when appropriate, in addition to VA Medical Centers. However, nonpayment issues have prevented full participation, limiting options and causing significant problems for Veterans. This problem was noted in a GAO report from early 2017, which recommended \u201cimproved oversight of VA community care\u201d to rectify the issue.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThe Choice Program was introduced to ensure Veterans have more options and shorter wait times as they seek the care they need,\u201d Rep. Love said. \u201cHowever, late payment and nonpayment threaten the success of the program and cause additional stress for both patients and providers. This is unacceptable, and we must correct it.\u201d\r\n\r\n\t***\r\n\r\n\tThe Honorable David J. Shulkin\r\n\r\n\tSecretary\r\n\r\n\tDepartment of Veterans Affairs\r\n\r\n\t810 Vermont Avenue NW\r\n\r\n\tWashington, DC\u00a0 20420\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tDear Secretary Shulkin:\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tI write to bring an ongoing issue of concern to your attention.\u00a0 As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has contracted, through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP), with Health Net Federal Services (HNFS) to ensure eligible Veterans receive access to the care they need in a timely manner. HNFS provides support to the region in which my state, Utah, is included.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tWhile in office, I have regularly heard from providers who have struggled to receive reimbursement from HNFS.\u00a0 For some providers, late or non-payments have reached critical proportions for their practice. As a result, many providers are no longer able to assist veterans seeking services through VCP.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tI have seen providers in my own district struggle with this issue. The Military and Veterans Counseling Center (MVCC) in Murray, Utah serves active military members as well as veterans battling depression, anxiety, PTSD, sexual trauma, and the effects of grief and loss. It also assists those in need of counseling for readjustment and injury or to improve family, home, and social situations.\u00a0 Their therapists are experts in their field and possess combat-related trauma training and an essential knowledge of military culture. They provide a crucial service to veterans in the community.\u00a0\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tMVCC came to my district office for help because nonpayment of veterans\u2019 bills was threatening their ability to assist veterans seeking services through Choice. MVCC presently has almost $21,000 in payments outstanding, representing 155 separate billings. Many of these date back more than a year.\u00a0 Some of the issues they have experienced with HNFS include claims rejected for incorrect color form, payment on some older claims but not others in the same timeline, and submitted claims not even showing in the HNFS system.\u00a0 Often times, HNFS failed to respond to the provider until my office became involved.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tThe providers that care for these veterans are delivering a crucial service. But if they are not paid, they will be unable to provide those services, leaving veterans with limited care options. Ultimately, this may force them into emergent care. This will increase costs for both the VA and the veteran.\u00a0 Some providers, unable to collect payment from Health Net, have chosen to seek payment from the veteran. When payment is not forthcoming, collections agencies may become involved, impacting the veterans\u2019 credit.\u00a0 Though there may be rules against providers going to veterans for payment, the existence of the rule makes little difference to the veteran experiencing the stress of collection efforts or reduced credit scores.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tAs you are aware, this problem was also highlighted in GAO\u2019s February 2017 High Risk Report, which recommended \u201cimproved oversight of VA community care to ensure\u2014among other things\u2014timely payment to community providers\u201d. In light of the GAO Report, and the experiences of providers and veterans, I respectfully request information on what immediate steps the VA is taking to address nonpayment to providers serving veterans through VCP, particularly with regards to HNFS.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tI look forward to your response and thank you for your dedicated service to veterans. Please know that I am always ready to work with you to supply the very best care to these brave men and women.\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tSincerely,\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\tRep. Mia Love", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-s-bipartisan-bill-passes-house", "Stewarts Bipartisan Bill Passes House", "2017-11-03", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Chris Stewart", "S001192", "stewart.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2013 Today, the House passes H.R. 3922 which included the text of Rep. Chris Stewart\u2019s (R-Utah) bipartisan bill, the National Health Service Corps Strengthening Act of 2017. The bipartisan legislation aims to reauthorize the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) for five years.\u00a0\u00a0\nThe NHSC is a national program that provides loan repayment and scholarship awards to primary care, mental health, and dental health professionals in exchange for practicing in federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) \u2013 locations where it is difficult to naturally entice health care professionals to practice. Additionally, the NHSC matches funding for State-based loan repayment programs that assist health professionals in underserved areas.\u00a0The NHSC has helped more than 50,000 health professionals meet the medical needs of underserved and vulnerable populations for over 40 years.\u00a0\nThe current funding for this program expired on September 30, 2017.\nThe National Health Service Corps Strengthening Act of 2017 reauthorizes the National Health Services Corps program for an additional five years and increase its funding by $10 million each year. The bill will extend health care services to five million more Americans and enable 5,000 more health professionals to participate in the program.\n\u201cThe NHSC program brings access to many Utahns who are living in rural communities and have limited access to care,\u201d said\u00a0Congressman Stewart.\u00a0 \u201cI\u2019m proud of the work the House has done. The Senate must now act on this meaningful legislation to ensure rural Americans have access to quality healthcare.\u201d\nThe NHSC is widely recognized- both in Utah and across the country- as a success on many fronts.\u00a0 According to the National Health Service Corps Stakeholders and the Association of American Medical Colleges, the program:\n \u00a0Improves access to health care for the growing numbers of rural and urban underserved Americans;\n\t\u00a0Increases state investments in recruiting and retaining health professionals;\n\t\u00a0Provides incentives for practitioners to enter primary care;\n\t\u00a0Reduces the financial burden that the cost of health professions education places on new practitioners; and\n\t\u00a0Helps ensure access to health professions education for students from all backgrounds.\n ###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=7DFE386E-13E4-4DE7-815F-7F15E422D0A7", "Sens. Lee and Rubio Respond to House Tax Plan", "2017-11-02", "2017", "2017-11", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mike Lee", "L000577", "www.lee.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement Thursday in response to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act released by House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX): \u201cWe appreciate the hard work and countless hours our colleagues in the House have put into crafting this legislation. As we\u2019ve long said, tax reform should be about making the code more pro-growth and pro-family. The House bill is an important step in the process.\u201d \u201cThe best way to provide real relief to working families is through a straightforward, significant, and permanent expansion of the child tax credit. We wish the House draft had done more on this front \u2013 preferably doubling the credit to $2,000 per child and expanding its applicability to payroll taxes. We look forward to working with our colleagues to make sure working families are moved to the front of the line in the Senate bill.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"], ["http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=729", "Bipartisan Love Bill to Update Higher Ed Reporting", "2017-10-31", "2017", "2017-10", "Republican", "House", "UT", "Mia Love", "L000584", "love.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON D.C. -- Representatives Mia Love (R-UT) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) recently introduced important bipartisan legislation to update and modernize the information reported by U.S. institutions of higher education. This will give students and their families the information they need to make informed decisions as they pursue further education.\r\n\r\n\tThe Comprehensive Student Achievement Information Act of 2017 (H.R. 4125) adjusts the outdated reporting requirements of community colleges to ensure more granular and accurate information is presented regarding completion rates. Updated requirements would present a more accurate image of student attendance patterns, completion times, and the relationship between the two.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cI have always been a strong advocate for getting students as much information as possible to aid them in making decisions regarding their education,\u201d Congresswoman Love said. \u201cUnfortunately, much of the information available to them today is incomplete, outdated, or inaccurate. My bill would make much needed reforms to this information, providing students with the improvements they deserve.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tCongresswoman Fudge adds:\u00a0 \u201cI am pleased to support legislation that will provide a better understanding of the role our community colleges play in serving the educational needs of the American workforce,\u201d said Congresswoman Fudge. \u201cThis legislation will update reporting requirements for our nation\u2019s universities and colleges, providing a more accurate picture of student attendance and graduation rates. \u00a0Every student will be properly counted and potential enrollees will be able to make more informed decisions when choosing an institution of higher learning.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tFrom Salt Lake Community College, President Deeneece G. Huftalin said: \u201cSalt Lake Community College and community colleges across the nation play a critical role in providing opportunities for students to succeed in their educational pursuits. Unfortunately tens of thousands of community college students who earn certificates or degrees are classified as \u201cdrop-outs\u201d because they don\u2019t complete their studies in the timeframe currently prescribed by the federal government, a timeframe that doesn\u2019t take into consideration that the majority of community college students attend part-time and as a result take longer to graduate.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tPresident Huftalin continued: \u201cWe join community colleges in applauding and thanking Congresswoman Mia Love and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge for their leadership on this important issue. H.R. 4125 will ensure that the millions of community college students who graduate with certificates or degrees are appropriately recognized by the federal government as college completers.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tHuftalin: \u201cThis legislation efficiently and effectively updates the antiquated federal statutory completion rate calculations.\u00a0 If enacted, this legislation will ensure that the accomplishments of community colleges are better understood by prospective students, policymakers, and the public.\u00a0 We urge its passage as part of the Higher Education Act reauthorization,\u201d said Dr. Alex Johnson, President of Cuyahoga Community College.\r\n\r\n\tDr. Walter G. Bumphus , President and CEO, American Association of Community Colleges: \u201cThis\u00a0 legislation is a top community college priority and will ensure that students, families, and policymakers gain a much more accurate picture of community college student outcomes.\u00a0 Under current law, their successes are grossly understated.\u00a0 We commend introduction of this bill and are pledged to advocate strongly for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.\u201d\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "truncated": false, "filtered_table_rows_count": 696, "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": "2017"}}, "facet_results": {"party": {"name": "party", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017", "results": [{"value": "Republican", "label": "Republican", "count": 696, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?state=UT&year=2017", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "chamber": {"name": "chamber", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017", "results": [{"value": "House", "label": "House", "count": 696, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017&chamber=House", "selected": false}], "truncated": false}, "state": {"name": "state", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017", "results": [{"value": "UT", "label": "UT", "count": 696, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&year=2017", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}, "year": {"name": "year", "type": "column", "hideable": false, "toggle_url": "/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017", "results": [{"value": "2017", "label": "2017", "count": 696, "toggle_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT", "selected": true}], "truncated": false}}, "suggested_facets": [], "next": "2017-10-31,http~3A~2F~2Flove~2Ehouse~2Egov~2Findex~2Ecfm~3Fsectionid~3D25~26itemid~3D729", "next_url": "http://dpwillis-congress-press-search.hf.space/press/releases.json?party=Republican&state=UT&year=2017&_next=2017-10-31%2Chttp~3A~2F~2Flove~2Ehouse~2Egov~2Findex~2Ecfm~3Fsectionid~3D25~26itemid~3D729&_sort_desc=date", "private": false, "allow_execute_sql": true, "query_ms": 198.44741187989712, "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"}