url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=8826bd89-1c86-470a-a14b-5099ebe326b6,"Senator Lee has 100,000 Followers on Twitter - Top Tweets of 2013",2013-12-31,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Early this morning, my following on Twitter surpassed 100,000. I would like to thank everyone that has joined the dialogue with me on Twitter. I have compiled a list of my most popular tweets from 2013. As you read through this list of tweets, you will see the important role you have all played in this dialogue. This year we have had important debates about controlling federal spending, protecting constitutional rights, protecting Americans from the negative effects of Obamacare, reforming immigration, and a variety of other topics. On January 1, 2013, I had ~15,700 followers on twitter.  Surpassing 100,000 followers is a great benchmark, and it verifies that more and more Americans are becoming engaged in the debate about the future of our country.  I am hopeful that we can continue to carry this dialogue forward into 2014 to even more people.   I look forward to being a part of this debate.  Here are the Twitter highlights from 2013.  Retweet your favorites: Everything about the #fiscalcliff deal was a failure: what Congress did, how Congress did it, and what Congress failed to do. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 2, 2013 Senator Ted Cruz has created his official Twitter account @SenTedCruz. You should follow him. Please RT #tcot #tlot #tgdn #txpol #pjnet — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 15, 2013 Unfortunately, the president is using Newtown tragedy to advance proposals that would do little to prevent such acts: http://t.co/SX7SjSKe — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 16, 2013 The president’s approach is inconsistent w/ #2ndAmendment rights, and it encroaches on state and local governments: http://t.co/7cRF13GR — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 16, 2013 #NLRB decision represents vindication of principled stand I've taken against President’s disregard of Constitution: http://t.co/jTHPsxr4 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) January 25, 2013 The Budget Act requires president to submit budget to Congress by today. Not surprisingly, he failed to do so: http://t.co/Y6RqI4cT #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 4, 2013 After disappointing hearing, unanswered questions, failure to comply with transparency requirements I cannot support #Hagel for SECDEF. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 7, 2013 Let's cut improper food stamp payments before cutting aircraft carrier deployments. #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/uHotSRDClS — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 27, 2013 We should look into getting rid of free government cell phones before cutting border security. #CutThisNotThat #tcot pic.twitter.com/iZmLzNBcNb — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 27, 2013 I join @SenTedCruz in objecting to Senate consideration of any CR w/out a vote on delaying funding of #Obamacare. http://t.co/F9W90o19eF — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 6, 2013 As @SenRandPaul began his filibuster of Brennan, I was questioning Holder on #drone strikes: http://t.co/CoFbBMjUfz — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 6, 2013 This is what I was doing on March 7 at 12:18 a.m. What were you doing? #StandWithRand http://t.co/ojXrrWrYNG — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 7, 2013 Sen. McConnell says he will support the Cruz/Lee amendment to CR to defund #obamacare: http://t.co/oYpPlcLkKd #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 8, 2013 We should cut USDA food tasting extravaganzas before food inspections. #CutThisNotThat #tcot pic.twitter.com/sumRy9kBRv — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 8, 2013 Our first priority to reduce spending should be to #DefundObamacare #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/wsDQjbG4J0 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 12, 2013 Rand Paul, MIke Lee, and Ted Cruz threaten filibuster on guns: http://t.co/nV4vGseZ3H #2A #tcot #tgdn #tlot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 26, 2013 We must ensure that Constitutional rights are not taken away casually: http://t.co/rDhWy4SNmc #2ndAmendment #tcot @SenTedCruz @SenRandPaul — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 Here is my response to the president's #guncontrol address: http://t.co/cGE1nPnrp2 #2ndAmendment #tcot @SenRandPaul @SenTedCruz — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 Push RT button. I just received word @MarcoRubio & Senator Inhofe have signed Paul, Cruz, Lee Letter to protect #2ndAmendment. @InhofePress — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 28, 2013 Momentum is Building to Protect #2ndAmendment in Senate: http://t.co/GVGLWan3Gl Please RT @SenRandPaul @SenTedCruz @MarcoRubio @Inhofepress — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 29, 2013 Constitution Wasn't Written to Maximize the Convenience of Government: http://t.co/YYyvAPasum #2ndAmendment #UniversalBackgroundCheck — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) March 30, 2013 I have joined 34 senators to prevent ratification of UN Arms Trade Treaty, which undermines #2ndAmendment rights: http://t.co/0blxK8X02i — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 3, 2013 #Guncontrol isn't about guns, it's about control. The right to bear arms isn't about the arms, it's about the right: http://t.co/bcXpQTWpKF — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 4, 2013 #UniversalBackgroundCheck bill S.649 doesn't keep guns out of hands of criminals, it turns gun owners into criminals: http://t.co/tPBMtwkZRk — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 5, 2013 President doesn't want filibuster because it prolongs debate. #Protect2A Add your voice: http://t.co/z83jhlMWci pic.twitter.com/qXTQ1GWdcq — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 Universal Background Check bill authorizes Eric Holder to create rules to require gun transfer records: http://t.co/UtXBveS1yb #Protect2A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 .@SenateDems Here is the bipartisan list of 50 Senators who already voted to protect the #2ndAmendment. #Protect2A pic.twitter.com/mdr6vjnF2P — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 9, 2013 I am headed to Senate floor right now to share #Protect2A submissions. Add your voice if you haven't already: http://t.co/V25SqXm65l #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 10, 2013 The Senate is voting now on a gun control bill that senators haven't been able to read yet: http://t.co/FuWDvqE6uh #Protect2A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 11, 2013 MT @sentedcruz: In statement w/ @SenMikeLee & @SenRandPaul: http://t.co/noFN6t8cFY Why is Senate voting on bill no one has read? #Protect2A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 11, 2013 It's unfortunate that we will have so little time to #ReadTheBill before holding hearings on #immigration reform: http://t.co/89kvAkZsQk — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 16, 2013 I voted NO on Toomey/Manchin background check proposal. The Amendment failed to receive 60 votes. #Protect2A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 17, 2013 After sequester, #FAA still has $9.2 billion to cover the $6.5 billion they need to operate #CutThisNotThat pic.twitter.com/N1HHMtwL1n — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 24, 2013 The Senate should formally review public policies that led to the illegal abortion practices of #Gosnell and others: http://t.co/x4GQYioUUX — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 6, 2013 Americans should be able to exercise constitutionally protected rights w/out fear of political retribution from #IRS: http://t.co/azPhK5vMIf — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 13, 2013 The #Gosnell trial is not about one man, it's about an unaccountable industry that preys upon vulnerable & innocent: http://t.co/IMsW0DrEZj — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 13, 2013 The #IRS scandal is the inevitable consequence of a government that has gotten too big & too expensive to control: http://t.co/zqV0oBynP2 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 When an agency like the #IRS can single out Tea Party groups, we are no longer citizens but subjects. http://t.co/h0uuGwv2Pc — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 Firing a few #IRS employees won't solve the problem. American people need to demand that government be less involved and less intrusive. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 Senate Democrats block @senrandpaul resolution condemning #IRS: http://t.co/6p4NSqZAUt #Protect1A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 15, 2013 I joined a press conference today to speak out against a government that has grown so large it can't be managed. #IRS pic.twitter.com/VtdNLKBfAV — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 Help share this --> The Obama Scandals Aren’t About Bad Government, but Big Government http://t.co/3kcrY9kCfc #TCOT #IRS — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 Obama's recess appointments ruled unconstitutional again today by 3rd Circuit: http://t.co/9vGr3pf2jV #StopIgnoringTheConstitution — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 16, 2013 To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power: http://t.co/gk5B4rPRP1 #Rush #tcot #IRS #Scandal — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 17, 2013 Don't be surprised that a $3.7 trillion government is corrupt. Be surprised that anyone expects a $3.7 trillion government not to be. #IRS — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 21, 2013 I joined Senator Rubio and @SenTedCruz to oppose raising the debt ceiling through budget conference: http://t.co/aCQ8gkuIhN Please RT #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 22, 2013 ""The American people don’t trust Congress – or either party, & we have given them 17 trillion reasons not to."" http://t.co/T4wLyVkpXF — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 23, 2013 VIDEO: Senator Lee Explains Why Senator McCain is Mistaken about Back Room #DebtCeiling Increase: http://t.co/CFm1xL1kV6 #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 25, 2013 Please RT if you agree that US should at least track & report the billions of taxpayer dollars we send to #UN: http://t.co/n3avOOmc0l — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) May 31, 2013 #NSA surveillance of #Verizon cell phone records illustrates why I voted against Patriot Act: http://t.co/6G2PuvJICu #Protect4A — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 6, 2013 Please RT if you think the government needs to #GetAWarrant: http://t.co/DqEcGB3gFr #Protect4A #NSA #Verizon — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 6, 2013 #Gangof8 talking points don't match reality of Gang of 8 legislation: http://t.co/5wzH7dWWjY — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 10, 2013 I voted against motion to proceed to #Gangof8 bill. I think it is a bad vehicle for reforming immigration system. pic.twitter.com/yc00tK4e93 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 11, 2013 S.744 surrenders control of #immigration law to the Secretary of Homeland Security and other unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. #CIRfloor — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 S.744 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security in hundreds of instances, to simply ignore #immigration law. #CIRfloor — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 We don’t need another 1,000 page bill full of unintended consequences. We need real #immigration reform. http://t.co/5Mp6TyLsBp #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 Here is the twitter version of my #immigration speech from today: http://t.co/Rlaf2DJigV Please help me RT these #tcot #Gangof8 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 12, 2013 Please RT if you don't think President Obama should shut down energy development on public lands: http://t.co/FG3k6ocsXs — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 13, 2013 Mike Lee and Ted Cruz challenge Obama with new military religious freedom amendments http://t.co/Ejj5v90i6g via @DCExaminer — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 18, 2013 Congress should have to approve DHS border security plans. Cutting out Congress means cutting out American people: http://t.co/NqXWSCy85r — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 19, 2013 Please RT if you agree w/ me, @SenRandPaul, @SenatorTomUdall, & @ChrisMurphyCT that we shouldn't send military funds to Syrian opposition. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 20, 2013 Please RT if you agree w/ me, @SenRandPaul, @SenatorTomUdall, & @ChrisMurphyCT that we shouldn't send military funds to Syrian opposition. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 20, 2013 From day one, the country was misled about what was in #Go8 bill. The talking points never matched bill's reality: http://t.co/8uM7N7bSFY — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 From day one, the country was misled about what was in #Go8 bill. The talking points never matched bill's reality: http://t.co/8uM7N7bSFY — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 I support immigration reform. But #Go8 is not immigration reform. It is big government dysfunction. I am voting no: http://t.co/0Rx1s0lT78 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 27, 2013 Read & RT if you agree that Americans need public answers on data government is collecting on them via #PatriotAct: http://t.co/KaSpgvFtjr — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) June 28, 2013 Please RT if you agree that #Obamacare is unaffordable and unfair: http://t.co/VcsdvAGOp4 #DontFundIt — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 17, 2013 Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios': http://t.co/LK6RLy6dIF #ObamacareReadingList — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 21, 2013 RT if you agree: Since President admits he can't follow #Obamacare, then Congress shouldn't fund it. http://t.co/D7x9Ke27TG #DontFundIt — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 23, 2013 Add your voice to the effort to eliminate funding for #ObamaCare: http://t.co/YeYCKFTiH9 #DontFundIt Make this go viral w/ RTs — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 25, 2013 If House passes bill to #DefundObamacare, will Senate Democrats fund government or shut it down to protect Obamacare? http://t.co/lAIYGRSrpP — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 5, 2013 It's the president who is threatening to shut down government, though media won't cover it that way: http://t.co/9ruyoqlDOf #DefundObamacare — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 14, 2013 Share this clip of @SenTedCruz discussing #DefundObamacare if you are part of the grassroots tsunami: http://t.co/LwQwd7jSqi #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 26, 2013 I need help to defeat the false narrative that the effort to #DefundObamacare is an effort to shutdown government: http://t.co/qQPo0tOrna — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 27, 2013 Before taking action in #Syria, the president should present his plan's cost, objectives, and timeline to Congress and get authorization. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 28, 2013 If the president believes the situation in #Syria presents a threat to U.S. national security, the right thing to do is call back Congress. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 30, 2013 If the president can't convince Congress that #Syria crisis threatens our national security, military intervention should be off the table. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 30, 2013 After participating in #Syria briefings yesterday, I do not believe that military action should be taken: http://t.co/Ta8BXGgI5g — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 5, 2013 #DefundObamacareBecause it was unconstitutionally rewritten twice by the Supreme Court and multiple times by the president. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 19, 2013 The House of Representatives has listened to the American people and just voted to #DefundObamacare. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 20, 2013 Take time today to thank your member of the House of Representatives if they voted to keep the government open and #DefundObamacare. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 20, 2013 The American People Are Rallying Around the effort to #DefundObamacare: http://t.co/IvRSP2Zr0W RT if Republicans should hold our ground. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 22, 2013 It is now time for the Senate to act to #DefundObamacare: http://t.co/h9av2tsffy via — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 24, 2013 Just today my office has received 1,093 emails, and almost every single one is asking me to do all I can to #DefundObamacare #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 I don't understand why voting to give Harry Reid power to gut the House defund bill is a vote in favor of House bill. #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep. #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 I would like to thank @SenTedCruz for his extraordinary effort to #MakeDCListen. http://t.co/Px0pRUn1Zk — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 25, 2013 Senate Republicans can prevent Sen. Reid from funding #Obamacare in the House CR if they stay unified: http://t.co/oIl6iggvdk #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 26, 2013 ""The American people will always have the final word"" http://t.co/2KBRluXXSp RT if you agree #NoOnCloture #MakeDCListen #DefundObamacare — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 27, 2013 ""If #Obamacare is the law, why won't the president follow it?"": http://t.co/qOIVSZry7f #MakeDCListen @FoxNewsSunday — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) September 30, 2013 We shouldn't have to fund everything in order to fund anything: http://t.co/bqrTnxO7lY #Shutdown #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 3, 2013 Today Senate Democrats made it clear that unless we fund #Obamacare, they won't fund veterans' benefits: http://t.co/86bw3yNJsk — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 4, 2013 House continues to pass bipartisan bills to fund government. Senate Democrats & president still refuse to negotiate: http://t.co/kt2fsk0tOr — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 5, 2013 Obama Admin’s behavior during week 1 of #shutdown has been the best argument against #Obamacare anyone has ever made: http://t.co/EC4s0D4btl — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 Government will use – and misuse – its power to advance its own interests, even if that means punishing Americans: http://t.co/cMZJ6dYKaN — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 The message behind Obama Admin’s #shutdown bullying is the same message sent by IRS’s abuses of political opponents: do what I say, or else — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 The #shutdown is introducing us to the abusive, partisan, unaccountable bureaucracy that, will soon be running America’s health care system. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 Each day of #shutdown brings a new and more vivid example of why it's critical that we not allow Washington to reach further into our lives. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 We now see how determined the president is to expand power of federal government & use that power to harm the country to get what he wants. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 7, 2013 It is time to stop using the word ""public"" when talking about land owned and managed by the federal government: http://t.co/9UGqVNnkhO — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 8, 2013 Almost 10k people signed my #DontFundIt letter during 1st day online. #Obamacare had 6,200 sign-ups on its first day: http://t.co/xTju20exB1 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 10, 2013 Today, @RushLimbaugh read one of my e-newsletters on his show. Many are asking where they can find it. Here's a link: http://t.co/Zk12tc2qTH — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 10, 2013 Here is a link to the Values Voter Summit speech I delivered earlier today: http://t.co/M5QVifhXSn #VVS13 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 11, 2013 Read and share the letter I signed with 49 other senators to announce our opposition the UN Arms Trade Treaty: http://t.co/fx8GLTWs7n #UNATT — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 15, 2013 Here we are again: A proposal that maintains status quo, very little time to read & evaluate the bill, & no time to explain it to Americans. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 It appears that this fight will end the same way #Obamacare began: in a last-minute back-room deal forced on Congress & the American people. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 The media keeps asking, was it worth it? My answer is that it is always worth it to do the right thing: http://t.co/VIOhWj4zOA — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 Fighting against an abusive government in defense of individual rights and freedoms is always the right thing: http://t.co/M77ByEtoe5 #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 16, 2013 Avoiding difficult battles is how we ended up in this mess: $17 trillion in debt, a broken entitlement system, a tax code no one understands — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 When the avoidance of political risk becomes our dominant motivation, only the Washington establishment wins. And the American people lose. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 We must remind the American people of the harmful effects of #Obamacare at every opportunity if we are ever going to see it repealed. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 Americans are realizing that with #Obamacare the Administration has either been dishonest or incompetent – or both: http://t.co/mlL5WHujv1 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 There will be very real consequences for people in both parties as a result of #Obamacare. American people will have the last word. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 This is not over. We have an obligation to fight for the American people. And I do not intend to let the people down. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 Help me RT this: It is always worth it to do the right thing: http://t.co/8bmygWEetA #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 17, 2013 We've got to launch this website to find out what is in it: http://t.co/yg814leYHH #Obamacare — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 18, 2013 House Leaders Must Shut Back Door To Comprehensive #Immigration Bill http://t.co/HRe6ZMx0u8 via @BreitbartNews @SenatorSessions — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 18, 2013 This is one of the best articles I have read about why the effort to #DefundObamacare was necessary: http://t.co/gw26A6M9cf #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 20, 2013 Americans are spending more time reading health plan cancellation notices than Democrats spent reading #Obamcare pic.twitter.com/H1aHO5s7es — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 21, 2013 #ButWaitTheresMore Aside from website problems & policy cancellation notices, employers are cutting hours and jobs: http://t.co/zHcjHg0IgD — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 #ButWaitTheresMore If website doesn't work, operators are standing by to redirect you back to the broken website: http://t.co/7gTZJe4pPE — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 #ButWaitTheresMore You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on #Obamacare website: http://t.co/SLdhni0yil — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 22, 2013 #ButWaitTheresMore Many believe technical problems plaguing #Obamacare website indicate the entire law is broken: http://t.co/1NaWssrEps — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 23, 2013 #ObamacareInOneWord ShamWow ... without the wow. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 24, 2013 The recent vote to fund government at current levels is touted as compromise, but it was really an act of collusion: http://t.co/0UQLz8VGBK — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 27, 2013 I am announcing new proposals tomorrow as part of the conservative reform agenda referenced in this speech: http://t.co/mIm1FlUv38 #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 28, 2013 Here's the text from my speech from yesterday: What's Next For Conservatives http://t.co/y1l5kVijep #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 30, 2013 It is time for a new, unifying conservative reform agenda: http://t.co/HGg9zAXxSu #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 30, 2013 Learn more about my Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act, that I introduced yesterday: http://t.co/yHt0zKZNQ6 #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 31, 2013 The president is resorting to scripted acts of deception instead of trying to protect Americans from #Obamacare: http://t.co/Wc7LDltgSn — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 7, 2013 The president now acknowledges that people relied on his promises about #Obamacare to their detriment: http://t.co/LRdvYDbTor — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 8, 2013 May God continue to bless those who have blessed our nation with their service and sacrifice. Happy Veterans Day! http://t.co/PJRhFDKUv9 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 11, 2013 A new conservative agenda must speak to the challenges and aspirations of those left behind by big government: http://t.co/h8RhSHQOu0 #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 12, 2013 People are hungry for a debate about how conservative principles can be applied to solve the nation's problems: http://t.co/N2ukkFeIqP #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 13, 2013 Four cyber security experts warn Americans not to use #Obamacare website in House hearing: http://t.co/6oZHmyzat5 #MakeDCListen — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 19, 2013 Today's decision by the Democrats to break Senate rules is a partisan attack on the very purpose of this institution: http://t.co/jQC5RWxR53 — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 21, 2013 I am concerned that we are loosening Iran's sanctions. #Iran doesn't have an inspiring history of keeping its word: http://t.co/ufTN7rq6TB — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 25, 2013 Happy Thanksgiving! May God continue to bless our great nation. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 28, 2013 Click to read why I can't support the #budget deal that was recently introduced: http://t.co/5kI5GFbM0s Please RT if you agree. #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 11, 2013 I can't vote for a bill I think is going to make our budgetary situation worse rather than better: http://t.co/NFcKf8immc #tcot — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 13, 2013 Today’s court decision regarding #NSA highlights the constitutional concerns I have raised about metadata program: http://t.co/vKA82cA2dv — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 16, 2013 Blocking debate on #NDAA violates the rights of the American people to have this bill debated and amended: http://t.co/BRcbbVnmY5 #utpol — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 19, 2013 Merry Christmas from my family to yours! pic.twitter.com/Bj7i3ZzM0O — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 25, 2013",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=319af966-7663-425f-aac9-1c43d411f61b,Hatch Praises Passage of Defense Bill that Includes Utah Provisions,2013-12-20,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which includes two significant provisions Hatch worked on that impact Utah. NDAA authorizes all budget expenditures for the Department of Defense. The NDAA includes a land transfer of the United States Air National Guard facility at Francis Peak from the federal government over to the State of Utah, which plans to use the structures to support emergency public safety communications such as 9-1-1 emergency response for Northern Utah. Also included in the NDAA is an authorization of funds to construct facilities at Hill Air Force Base critical to the housing and maintenance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet.   “Providing for the defense and security of our nation is one of the most important responsibilities Members of Congress have, and I was proud to vote today to ensure our Defense Department and Utah have the tools they need to fulfil their responsibilities to our nation,” Hatch said. “I’m especially grateful to House and Senate Leadership on the Armed Services Committees for including these two provisions important to Utah. By turning over the facility at Francis Peak to the State, we’re ensuring that Northern Utahns in emergency situations can get access to the emergency care they need.  And the new construction at Hill will guarantee that the hardworking men and women at Hill have the state of the art equipment they need to service the state-of-the-art next generation aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.”   The Francis Peak land conveyance is outlined in section 2836 of NDAA, and the military construction projects at Hill AFB is authorized in section 4601. The full bill text of the NDAA can be found HERE.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5f87ff62-a487-48ce-80a9-fab242422536,Hatch: Obamacare's Problems Are Deeply Rooted in DNA,2013-12-20,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In a speech on the Senate floor today, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) outlined ongoing challenges that have plagued the implementation of ObamaCare and said recent updates to the HealthCare.gov website will not resolve the fundamental flaws of the President’s signature domestic policy.  Hatch also reacted to the Obama Administration’s announcement that Americans will be allowed to replace their canceled health care plans with “catastrophic” coverage plans.  “The Administration has admitted that it bungled the rollout and tried to cover up for what Politifact dubbed Lie of the Year by passing the buck to states and insurers as to whether individuals would be able to keep their plans for the next year.  But, let’s be clear about this: Obamacare’s problems are deeply rooted in its DNA and are far bigger than just a website,” said Hatch. Hatch further noted that the Administration’s recent announcement to allow Americans with canceled insurance plans to either buy catastrophic plans or avoid the requirement that they buy health insurance altogether is leading to significant confusion.  “It’s been less than a full day and already this decision is causing confusion among insurers. It will almost certainly do the same for consumers,” said Hatch. “It seems that the Obama Administration is just making all of this up as they go along.  Undoubtedly, many people will suffer the consequences of this ineptitude.”  Below are Hatch’s full remarks delivered on the Senate floor today: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the debacle that is the so-called Affordable Care Act. I don’t think there’s anyone in this chamber – Republican or Democrat – that would dispute that, thus far, the implementation of this law has been a disaster, particularly with regard to the healthcare.gov website and the President’s promise that “if you like your health care plan you can keep it.       The Administration has admitted that it bungled the rollout and tried to cover up for what Politifact dubbed Lie of the Year by passing the buck to states and insurers as to whether individuals would be able to keep their plans for the next year.  But, let’s be clear about this: Obamacare’s problems are deeply rooted in its DNA and are far bigger than just a website.    Is the website causing the cost of health insurance premiums to go up dramatically?  Is the website causing businesses to force more and more employees to work part-time?  Is the website sending out cancellation notices to patients and consumers telling them that their health care plans are no longer available?  Of course not.  Yet, as the functionality of the website continues to improve, the administration is starting to talk as if EVERY problem with the law has been fixed and that all the other issues going to simply dissolve.  But, Mr. President, we know that’s not the case.  In reality, the problems with Obamacare are only beginning.  I’d like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the problems we’re going to be seeing in the future as the President’s health law continues to be implemented. I have to say that, when it comes to Obamacare, it’s a little difficult to make predictions.  That’s because the administration has gone to great lengths to muddy the waters with delayed deadlines and unilateral policy changes.  However, I think we can look through the opaque waters and identify at least six general areas where we can expect to see major problems in the coming months.  Number One:  We’re going to continue to see problems with the implementation of Obamacare. Like I said, there have undoubtedly been improvements to the website.  But there are still issues that are far from resolved. Let’s just look at enrollment in the exchanges to see how things are going. As of November 30, roughly 365,000 individuals had enrolled in health insurance coverage through the state and federal exchanges.  That’s a small improvement from the numbers we saw at the end of October, but still FAR short of the benchmarks the Department of Health and Human Services had set for enrollment in the exchanges. Originally, HHS touted a goal of enrolling seven million people in the exchanges by March of 2014.  And, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press, HHS projected that, on the way to reaching that goal of seven million enrollees, they’d enroll roughly half a million people in the first month.  Yet, after two months, they were still more than 100,000 people short of that one-month benchmark.  The same memo projected that they’d have 3.3 million enrollees by the end of the 2013.  Yet, if they’re going to reach that target, they’ll have to enroll nearly 10 times as many people as they’ve enrolled so far in just the next week and a half. Sure, many of these enrollment problems are due to the poorly designed and poorly executed website.  But, even with the website’s improvements, it would take a substantial miracle for the administration to meet its enrollment goals for the coming months. There are other significant problems to be concerned about, most notably, those associated with the premium-subsidy program administered by the IRS.  Earlier this month, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report that found that the IRS has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people’s personal information will likely be at risk.  There are real questions as to whether the IRS can effectively verify the income of those applying for these subsidies.  I have also raised this concern on a number of occasions.  Similar tax subsidy programs – including, for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – that are paid out before they are verified have improper payment rates as high as 25 percent.  If we see the same improper payment rate on these Obamacare subsidies as we do on the EITC, it will end up costing tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years.     As I’ve said in the past, the Obamacare premium subsidies – with the lack of security and safeguards – are a fraudster’s dream.  Mr. President, the administration may claim that, with the recent improvements to the healthcare.gov website, all is now right with the world.  However, as you can see, there are a number of administrative problems that, even with a functional website, have yet to be resolved.  Number Two: Americans will be left without coverage due to the problems with Obamacare. As a result of the dismal rollout of Obamacare, many Americans – particularly those that have tried to enroll in the exchanges – could very well end up being uninsured for a time. Last week, an article appeared in the Washington Post that told the stories of people who were forced out of their existing health plans due to Obamacare’s coverage mandates, but are unable to sign up for new plans on the exchange due to the failings of the website.   The deadline for signing up for coverage that starts on January 1, 2014, is December 23, 2013.  Anyone who has been kicked off their plan that is unable to sign up before that date – which is just a few days away – will find themselves facing a gap in medical coverage.  For the chronically ill or for people with expensive medical conditions, this gap in coverage will be particularly acute. These people are, according to the Washington Post, “Obamacare’s biggest losers.”  And, yet ostensibly, these are the very people that this law was supposed to help. Another reason that countless Americans may end up seeing gaps in coverage is simply because they will be unable to navigate the ever-changing landscape that is Obamacare’s dates and deadlines.  Due to the failures of the rollout, the administration has delayed or shifted virtually every deadline associated with obtaining and paying for coverage.  For example, like I said, the deadline for enrolling in insurance coverage that starts on January 1st is December 23rd.  The deadline for actually getting the first premium payment to insurers is December 31st.  Both of these dates have been moved at least once already and could be moved again.  On top of that, the administration has issued statements “encouraging” insurers to extend their own deadlines for payment and enrollment. This is on top of the delays in the Employer Mandate, the Shop Exchanges, and the countless other provisions we’ve seen delayed or extended over the past year.  People are bound to be confused by all of these changes.  It is nearly impossible for anyone, let alone those with serious medical conditions, to keep track of the ever-changing deadlines the administration keeps issuing.  And, with no clarity as to when people should sign up and who they should pay and when, it’s a virtual certainty that many consumers will find themselves uncovered for a period of time through no fault of their own.  The administration added to all of this uncertainty last night with the announcement that it was going to allow people with canceled insurance plans to either buy catastrophic plans or avoid the requirement that they buy health insurance altogether.  It’s been less than a full day and already this decision is causing confusion among insurers. It will almost certainly do the same for consumers.  It seems, Mr. President, that the Obama Administration is just making all of this up as they go along.  Undoubtedly, many people will suffer the consequences of this ineptitude.  Number Three:  There will continue to be spikes in premiums and other costs. We’ve already seen what’s happening to the price of insurance in the individual market.  Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people have already lost their existing health insurance and have found that their options on the exchanges come with much higher premiums. This sticker shock has been widely reported.  But, that’s not end of the prices problem.  Unfortunately, many people are also finding that their out of pocket costs will be dramatically increased thanks to higher copayments and prescription drug costs included in plans on the exchanges. In many cases, it’s difficult for patients to determine which medications are covered on the Obamacare plans.  Unlike in Medicare Part D, the Obamacare website does not have a plan finder that would enable consumers to search for plans based on drug coverage.  These new costs are particularly high when compared to the insurance plans that were recently canceled.  But, it’s not just happening in the individual market.  These price spikes are also hitting people with employer-provided insurance.  According to a recent poll by the Associated Press, nearly half of Americans with job-based or other private insurance say their policies will be changing next year, mostly for the worse. Sixty-nine percent say that the cost of their insurance will be going up. Fifty-nine percent say their annual deductibles or copayments are increasing.  The Affordable Care Act did little to rein in the actual cost of health care.  When you add in the costs associated with the law’s mandates and regulations, costs are going up, particularly for small businesses, our main job creators.    A recent survey of small business owners by the National Federation of Independent Business confirmed that this is already starting to happen. In the survey, 64 percent of small businesses reported that they paid more for employee health insurance premiums in 2013 than they did in 2012.  Small business owners consistently cite the rising cost of health care as their top business concern.  This brings us to the next obvious prediction. Number Four: Millions of people will lose their existing employer-provided health insurance. Once again, we’re all familiar with President Obama’s infamous promise: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But, little has been said about the threats Obamacare’s mandates pose to people who get their health insurance from their employers.  Put simply, the health law was designed specifically to invalidate existing health care plans – those deemed inadequate by the drafters of the law – in order to force people into more expensive plans with expanded coverage they don’t necessarily want or need.  This applies to both individual market plans and employer-provided plans alike.    The administration’s own estimates – published in the Federal Register – predicted that tens of millions of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance will see their plans invalidated by the Affordable Care Act’s mandates and regulations. According to recent analysis from the American Enterprise Institute, as many as 50-100 million insurance policies in the employer-provided insurance market will see their plans canceled next fall when all business plans must be fully compliant with Obamacare’s insurance mandates.  At that point, businesses will have to face a difficult choice: Offer a more expensive health care plan to their employees, or send employees into the exchanges.  And, as we’ve already seen, that is not a great place to be.  Number Five:  Health Insurers will either leave the market or face bankruptcy. One of the foundational assumptions made by the drafters of the Affordable Care Act was that the costs to insurers of providing vastly expanded coverage would be offset when more young and healthy patients are brought into the risk pools.  Indeed, this is almost the entire basis for the Individual Mandate. The problem is that, so far, this doesn’t seem to be happening.  And, there’s good reason to question whether it ever will. With the ever-increasing cost of insurance as a direct result of Obamacare, there will likely be many who opt to stay out of the market altogether.  There is ample data to support this conclusion. For example, in a poll released earlier this month from the Harvard Institute of Politics, those in the millennial generation – the very people that proponents of Obamacare desperately need to add to the insurance pool – were shown to be highly skeptical of the law.  In the poll, a majority of 18-29 year-olds disapproved of the Affordable Care Act and said that it will increase their health care costs.  Only 18 percent of respondents in that age group said that they thought the law would improve their health care.  Clearly, the authors of Obamacare thought that the Individual Mandate, along with a strong sense of civic duty, would coerce people into acting against their own interests and paying expanded costs for coverage they don’t necessarily want or need.  However, in the real world, where people weigh costs and benefits before making a decision, millions of people are more likely to pay a fine instead of entering a skewed and unstable insurance market where the costs are forever going up.  And, without a greatly expanded risk pool of younger, healthier consumers, it’s just not going to be worth it for many insurers to stay in the market.  Those insurers who do stay and try to stick it out will do so at greater risk to their financial future.  Insurers aren’t the only ones facing a dismal economic outlook as a result of Obamacare, which brings me to my final prediction. Number Six: Obamacare will continue to be a drag on business and our overall economy. It isn’t just patients and consumers that are suffering under Obamacare.  Employers are also facing difficulties as a direct result of Obamacare. As I’ve discussed here on the floor at length, in anticipation of the Employer Mandate, businesses all across the country have either reduced employment or stopped hiring. Workers that had full-time jobs before the passage of Obamacare are finding themselves moved into part-time work because, under the law, employers will be forced to provide coverage for full-time workers. Even the unions, who were among the biggest supporters of the health law when it was being debated in Congress, have come out and said that the law is destroying the 40-hour work week for American workers.  Last week, the National Association of Manufacturers released its quarterly survey of its members, which showed overwhelmingly that the President’s health care law is having a negative impact on the manufacturing sector.  According to the survey, more than 20 percent of manufacturers have cut or decelerated their business investment as a result of Obamacare.  Nearly one quarter of them have either reduced employment or ceased hiring.  Roughly a third of them say they have reduced their business outlook for 2014 as a result of the so-called Affordable Care Act.  And, more than 77 percent – nearly eight in ten – of manufacturers cited rising health insurance costs as a primary business challenge. In other words, Mr. President, at a time when our economy is still growing at a sluggish pace and job growth remains lackluster, the President and Democrats in Congress continue to support a health care law that is making America a much more difficult place to do business and to find and keep a job.  And, it’s only going to get worse as this wears on.  Mr. President, these are just some of the problems we’re going to see in the coming months as a direct result of Obamacare and they aren’t going to go away so long as the Affordable Care Act remains in place.  As I see it, with 2013 coming to a close, the President and his allies here in Congress are at a crossroads – they have two choices. They can continue to double-down on the same failed policy that is increasing the cost of health insurance in this country and causing millions of people to lose their existing coverage and will continue to wreak havoc well into the future.  Or, they can, for once, try to work with Republicans on replacing this failure with something that has a real chance of success.  I hope that, eventually, they choose the latter.  But, needless to say, I won’t keep my hopes up.   I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221001036/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364797,Bishop Notes the Importance of Budget’s Passage and Stopping Defense Sequester,2013-12-18,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) today noted the importance of the U.S. Senate’s passage of the budget measure, which avoids another government shutdown, protects military and civilian defense workers in Utah, and reduces the deficit by more than $23 billion. The bill will now head to the President’s desk to be signed into law. According to a study conducted by George Mason University, defense sequestration in the State of Utah hit more than 8,000 jobs in the defense and aerospace sectors, which had a significant impact on our nation’s military readiness capabilities.   ""With today’s passage, we are ensuring that jobs and critical components of our national defense capabilities aren't crippled as the result of sequestration and another government shutdown. Congress has a responsibility to uphold the fundamental tenet of the Constitution to provide for the common defense of our country. This budget was far from perfect but it does protect our national defense. If we had more reasonable leadership amongst Senate democrat leaders, this bill would have likely turned out far better. The bottom line is that our country needs a budget and to get one done, we had to get past Senator Harry Reid. The fact that we have been able to avoid a shutdown, curtail the defense sequester, and reduce the deficit is significant,"" said Congressman Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011348/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364783,"IN THE NEWS: In a Do-Nothing Congress, Rob Bishop Got Stuff Done",2013-12-18,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"IN THE NEWS: In a Do-Nothing Congress, Rob Bishop Got Stuff Done f t # e Washington, Dec 18, 2013 by Bryan Schott, Today At Utah Policy A new analysis of the 113th Congress finds Rep. Rob Bishop on a very short list of members who were able to get legislation acted on. The Huffington Post calculated ""efficiency ratings"" for each member of Congress based on the number of bills a member was able to get out of committee in relation to the total amount of legislation they sponsored. Bishop scores a 71% rating for having 12 of his 17 bills pass out of committee. READ MORE HERE: Utah Policy.com HuffingtonPost.com   f t # e",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-the-retirement-of-rep-jim-matheson,Stewart Statement on the Retirement of Jim Matheson,2013-12-17,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov Washington, D.C. –  After the announcement that Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) will retire next year, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement: ""I was surprised to hear the news that Rep. Jim Matheson will be retiring next year. While we may not always agree on legislation, he is a public servant whom I respect and have enjoyed working alongside. He has always worked hard to do what he believes is best for his constituents and the state of Utah. I wish him and his family the best in their future endeavors and know that he will be greatly missed within our delegation.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a248b1ac-4545-4466-bc41-e8ff55153824,Hatch Statement on Jim Matheson Retirement,2013-12-17,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the most senior member of the Utah Congressional delegation, issued the following statement after Congressman Jim Matheson (UT-04) announced he will retire at the end of this Congress:   “During my 37 years in the United States Congress, I’d be hard pressed to name someone who I’ve enjoyed serving alongside of more than Jim Matheson. While we didn’t agree on everything, you always knew that Jim was doing what he sincerely felt was best for our state.  From public land rights to standing up for Hill Air Force Base to fighting against Obamacare, I’ve been proud to stand with Jim on behalf of Utahns and the values we hold dear.  Jim and I have represented Utah together for 13 years, and I’ve had the pleasure of knowing him and his family for much longer.  I wish Jim, his beautiful wife Amy, and their sons Will and Harris much love and success in whatever comes next for their family.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=092b83f6-d0e3-4a0c-b6ef-ed112fbc61aa,December 2013 Tele-townhall: A Year in Review,2013-12-17,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"A Year in Review On the night of Wednesday, December 18 at 7:00 p.m. MT, I will be holding my final tele-townhall of the year.  We have had a busy year in Washington and there is much I want to discuss with the people of Utah.  As I look forward to where we are headed as a country, I believe we need to come together in an open dialogue about how to best chart a course toward a better future. I look forward to having a discussion about your questions and concerns, observations and insight.  Below is a list of major developments from the last year that I hope we can touch on during our discussion. Read the bill before you vote One of the first things that Congress did in 2013 was pass a deal to avert the ""fiscal cliff.""  Many Americans were alarmed to find that Congress approved this legislation after only having 6 minutes to read the bill.  We saw similar tactics employed when the Senate tried to pass new gun control laws and when it passed the Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration reform bill.  On October first, millions of Americans started experiencing first-hand the consequences of a law that was passed without many members of Congress ever reading it as Americans across the country started reading the cancelation notices for their health insurance plans because of Obamacare. Unfortunately, Americans spent more time reading these cancelation notices than those who voted for Obamacare spent reading the bill.  Americans are right to be outraged.  Americans deserve proposals that offer simplicity instead of complexity, that work by promoting freedom and flexibility instead of mandates and coercion, and that can be debated in the open, not negotiated in secret.  Cut This, Not That Throughout the year, Congress has continued to debate spending, deficits and our debt ceiling.  At the beginning of this year, we experienced our first round of sequester cuts.  Unfortunately, the Administration decided to intentionally make these cuts as painful as possible.  Americans saw through this charade, and together we identified areas where a government with $17 trillion in debt can make responsible cuts.  Congress is currently working on finalizing the budget, and we still haven’t passed any structural spending reforms that are necessary to avoid the fiscal avalanche I have warned against.  This week, the Senate is set to debate the most recent version of a budget that makes more government more expensive. This recent budget deal increases spending, eliminates concrete spending reductions now for theoretical spending cuts a decade from now. A New Year, A New Day, A New Agenda The media likes to focus on the discord, dysfunction, and disruption that come from Washington.  Most Americans would be surprised to find out how frequently I work with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle.  This year I have co-sponsored several bipartisan bills that would improve our patent system, prevent privacy rights abuse, and limit domestic surveillance.  I have also recently been introducing several elements of a conservative reform agenda.  We need a positive agenda which lifts and creates opportunities for those trapped in poverty and relieves pressures facing the middle class. Protecting Our Constitutional Rights During the spring of 2013 we had a robust debate on several gun control proposals.  I was encouraged to see so many American people rally to defend their Second Amendment rights.  This year we have also had extended debates about due process rights and privacy rights.  The freedom of the press has been threatened.  The freedom of speech is in the crosshairs of the IRS.  States’ rights have been subverted.  We are also witnessing the erosion of our religious liberty.  In short, it is becoming painfully obvious to Americans that our enormous government has grown at the expense of individual liberty.  Americans are finding that a government that costs trillions of dollars to run comes with other staggering costs that aren’t so easy to quantify. Looking Ahead Last week, I joined the vast majority of my colleagues to speak out against recent actions by the Senate Democrats to overturn centuries-long precedents in the Senate for confirming presidential nominees.  In my speech I emphasized the point that these actions take power away from the American People and shut them out of the political process.  I do not believe that the American people will quietly be shut out.  I am always grateful to see high levels of engagement among my constituents. Tomorrow’s tele-townhall will be a great opportunity for us to maintain an open dialogue on how we can move forward as a country.  I am looking forward to your feedback.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=46ab19ac-62bc-4f26-948b-74653b2818ee,"Hatch on Budget Agreement: ""Sometimes the Answer Has to be Yes""",2013-12-16,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement announcing that he will support the consensus budget agreement negotiated by House and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.): “This agreement isn’t everything I’d hoped it would be, and it isn’t what I would have written. But sometimes the answer has to be yes. The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government. Ultimately, this agreement upholds the principles conservatives stand for and, with Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, it is the best we could hope for. I know that crafting this budget was hard fought, and it’s built on the necessary consensus that reflects divided government. “I appreciate the hard work of Paul Ryan, Speaker Boehner, and House Republicans in crafting this commendable compromise that reduces our debt over the long-term, prevents another government shutdown, and stops the budget battles that have rocked America with economic uncertainty and political pessimism. Much more work needs to be done to address the number one drivers of our country’s debt – our entitlement programs. But my hope is that this budget agreement paves the way to greater stability, lasting deficit reduction, and the political will to tackle those challenges in the near future.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=cbe99252-c98c-4a88-b9a2-5b3b4761eb41,Lee: Utah to Lose $32 Million in Budget Deal,2013-12-16,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee announced that under the recent Senate-House budget deal, the state of Utah would lose approximately $32 million in payments from the federal government.  Under the Mineral Leasing Act, the federal government leases federal land for the development of energy, minerals and other materials, and shares the revenue with the states in which the leases are held.  The revenue is currently split evenly between the states and the federal government.  Section 302 of the budget deal would only decrease what the states receive, leaving the federal portion intact. That would mean a total reduction of $415 million for the states, with roughly $32 million coming from Utah.    “It is unfortunate that the budget targets the mineral leasing program,” said Sen. Lee, who sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “Many of Utah’s rural communities depend on this funding and we shouldn’t be pulling the rug out from under them when there are so many other wasteful and ineffective programs in the federal government to reform.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-supports-budget-deal,Chaffetz Supports Budget Deal,2013-12-13,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-responds-agreement-between-wireless-carries-and-fcc,Chaffetz Responds to Agreement between Wireless Carriers and FCC,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-wyden-ask-holder-release-unredacted-geolocation-memos,"Chaffetz, Wyden Ask Holder to Release Unredacted Geolocation Memos",2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-votes-in-favor-of-the-bipartisan-budget-act,Stewart Votes in Favor of the Bipartisan Budget Act,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. Following the vote, he released the following statement: “I voted in favor of the budget deal Chairman Paul Ryan has negotiated.  Chairman Ryan is negotiating with a partner that fails to recognize the gravity of the situation our great country is facing and refuses to make the hard choices to put our country on a real path to fiscal sustainability.” “The sequester was a blunt instrument that indiscriminately cut defense spending in an irresponsible manner.  This deal reverses those cuts that were focused largely on our defense spending.  While I acknowledge that we can, and should, address wasteful spending in our defense department, the sequester was a poor way to address the need for more responsible spending.” “Chairman Ryan was able to keep in place most of the overall spending cuts from the Budget Control Act while relieving the cuts to defense spending that have hurt our national security and military readiness over the past five years.  This deal also allows us to return Congress to regular order--stopping Washington from governing crisis to crisis.  Having a budget in place will allow Republicans to hold the President and his federal agencies accountable through the appropriations process.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004303/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364275,House Passes NDAA,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON– The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes three provisions benefitting Northern Utah that were included at the request of Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee. “It is important that we pass the NDAA each year. The bill authorizes just about every aspect of our national defense infrastructure and capabilities.  This year I am especially pleased that provisions to support Utah’s National Guard, Air National Guard, and Hill Air Force Base have been included. The land conveyance for Camp Williams and the transfer of ownership of Francis Peak Radar Site are important to the state. I am also pleased that we continue to prepare for the arrival of the F-35 at Hill Air Force Base. Hill will not only be home to the first F-35s but will oversee much of the maintenance on all of the other F-35s in the country,” said Bishop. The NDAA directs the Secretary of Interior to convey 420 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land located within Camp Williams to the State of Utah. The land will permit the Utah National Guard to conduct ongoing military training and readiness exercises and will streamline the management and utilization of the property. In addition to securing land for the Utah National Guard, the NDAA authorizes the Utah Air National Guard to transfer the Francis Peak Radar Site to the State of Utah.  Allowing the state to save this infrastructure from demolition ensures the continuation of emergency communications (including 911 services to Davis County) and relieves the Utah Air National Guard of its obligations now that its mission for the site has ended.  Should this not have happened, the Guard would have been obligated under existing Department of Defense (DOD) regulations to dismantle existing infrastructure at a cost to the taxpayers of nearly $2 million dollars. This would have resulted in the loss of communications to the Utah Emergency Network. The NDAA also funds new infrastructure projects at Hill Air Force Base to prepare for the anticipated arrival of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “I sincerely hope that the Senate will consider setting aside their typical partisan antics in order to do what is right for the country. This is not a bill that ought to be leveraged in a political fight. We absolutely must pass this bill to ensure that our defense efforts, including the men and women serving this country, are not disrupted or jeopardized in any way,” Bishop added.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011352/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364311,House Passes Two Year Budget,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the budget to authorize the funding of the federal government during fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The budget importantly reduces the deficit by $20-23 billion and protects the military from drastic sequester cuts over the next two years.  Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) joined with 332 colleagues in support of the measure, noting the relief it will bring to our national defense. “Passing a budget is important and just like families and businesses across the country realize, sacrifices are necessary. In this instance, I would have liked to have seen deeper spending cuts. However, the House, Senate, and White House don’t share the same outlook on fiscal conservatism. The key point, though, is that for the next couple of years this bill relieves the burden of sequester on our nation’s military while still reducing the deficit over the long-term. The hard working men and women who serve our country have shouldered more than their fair share from President Obama’s draconian cuts to defense as well as the President’s sequester cuts to defense. You can’t balance the budget on the back of our military.  Stopping these looming sequester cuts is the right thing to do.  If we want to get serious about addressing the budget and curbing spending, we need to expand our sights beyond the Department of Defense,” Bishop stated.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1169fd46-3030-49ea-b12d-8f0c776ea717,"Hatch, Baucus Laud Finance Committee Action on Proposals to Strengthen & Improve Child Welfare in America",2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today applauded Committee action on a bipartisan package of legislative proposals to improve child welfare in America. The Supporting At-Risk Children Act strengthens and renews adoption incentive and foster care policies; works to combat child sex trafficking; and improves the collection of meaningful child support payments from noncustodial parents living overseas. The Chairman’s Mark, which was favorably reported out of the Committee overwhelmingly by voice vote, included key provisions from Baucus that address increased permanency options for kids in foster care, creates a National Advisory Committee on Domestic Sex Trafficking to disseminate best practices, and child support enforcement provisions that help collect funds for tribal children and promote responsible fatherhood. The mark also contains key elements from Hatch’s bill, S. 1518, the Improving Outcomes for Youth At Risk for Sex Trafficking, IO YOUTH. The measure further draws from a number of bipartisan proposals, including trafficking legislation (S. 1118) sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Wis.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as well as child support legislation introduced by Senators Robert Menendez (S. 508) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.) “Given the challenges plaguing America’s child welfare and foster care systems, today the Finance Committee acted in a bipartisan way with smart policies that will better protect and improve the well-being of our nation’s most vulnerable children,” said Senator Hatch.  “These proposals – from improving adoption assistance to taking steps to put to an end to domestic youth sex trafficking – will help foster a safer environment for our young people to put them on a path to leading happy, healthy, and successful lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these policies are enacted into law.  “The most important factors in a child’s life are a strong family and supportive community.  Unfortunately, too many of America’s children lack this vital support network,” Senator Baucus said.  “When families struggle, oftentimes it is the child welfare system that steps in to help. The legislation this committee approved today will go a long way towards strengthening America’s child welfare system.  This Committee’s work on adoption and guardianship, trafficking, and child support will go a long way towards helping kids to get the resources they need.  It will restore hope, strengthen families, and support America’s future generations.” The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over grants to states that provide aid and services to families in need of child welfare services, foster care, or adoption assistance. A summary of the Chairman’s Mark of the Supporting At-Risk Children Act can be found HERE.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=dda0cc37-84d9-466c-aec5-94a3435f8b27,Shutting the American People Out of the Political Process,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Mr. President, I'd first like to thank my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from Wyoming, who is a good friend and a fine example to all those who know him. People from both sides of the aisle can learn and benefit from my friend from Wyoming who as a businessman, later as a mayor, as a devoted husband and father, has served his country well and has served his colleagues in the Senate well. His remarks on the Senate floor tonight have been especially insightful and I've learned something from him this evening as I do every time he speaks. He's one who reached out to me shortly after I arrived here in the united states senate and one who has always shown to me great kindness. And I've always been grateful for that and I look forward to continuing to work with him in the Senate. You know, Mr. President, what's happening in the senate right now is more than just an attempt by the majority to end debate on nominees. It's an attempt to shut out the American people from the political process. You see, President Obama and the majority party in the Senate are so dedicated to enacting their progressive agenda that they'll do anything, even if it means running roughshod over the minority and ignoring the will of the people. Our founding fathers drafted the Constitution to prevent this sort of thing from happening and to protect the rights of all Americans. They devised a constitutionally limited government with a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of government would wield unlimited power. You see, the whole idea of this system was to prevent the excessive aggregation of power, the excessive accumulation of power within the hands of a few. Under our Constitution, the president's representative function is to faithfully execute the law and not to make it. Congress as a whole alone makes the laws, including a deliberative Senate whose majorities reflect minority views. Senate Democrats' recent actions are an assault on republican institutions and the protections they provide to all Americans. The current administration and Senate Democrats view the Constitution as an impediment to the enactment of their agenda. This is why the president illegally amended the Affordable Care Act, a law passed by Congress, through executive action instead of after asking Congress to amend it. It's also why Democrats are willing to break the rules of Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate, so that they can more quickly, more easily confirm the president's nominees. Make no mistake, the executive and judicial nominees we're considering will be tasked with implementing and upholding President Obama's agenda. Congress is a representative body and is the only branch of government given the constitutional authority to make laws. We represent the people. When the president illegally changes the law or when he tramples on the rights of the minority in the Senate, he guarantees that the people will have no voice and no representation. These are not trivial matters. These are not matters that we can casually, cavalierly cast aside. These are matters of great importance. We have to remember what happened just a few short months ago when we were told on July 2 of this year that President Obama had decided to change the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in several meaningful ways. This, of course, was a law that was passed without consensus. It was passed without any semblance of bipartisanship. It was a law that was passed without a single Republican vote, not a single Republican voted for it in the Senate, and not a single Republican voted for it in the House. All 2,700 pages of this law, a law that wasn't read before it was passed, a law that we were told members would have to pass in order to find out what was in it, this law took effect. And over time, as the American people learned about the law's contents, they didn't grow more favorably predisposed toward the law. The law, has, in fact, never enjoyed the support of a solid majority of Americans. But over time, its popularity has tended to diminish. And perhaps seeing this, President Obama on July 2 of this year chose to wield his executive pen in such a way as amend that law. He chose, among other things, to announce that the law contains a number of deadlines, a number of start dates that he would not be enforcing for the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He would, of course, still be enforcing, as of the January 1st start date, the individual mandate, but he would not be implementing or enforcing, at least for the first full year of the law's operation, the employer mandate. Of course he had no authority to do this. The Constitution sets in place a system for making law. In order to become law, a legislative proposal has to make its way through the House of Representatives, has to make its way through the Senate, and then it has to be presented to the president, consistent with Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2, of the Constitution before it may become law. But of course once it's law, it's law and a law passed under one administration can't simply be vetoed or fundamentally altered by a subsequent president. In fact, it can't be vetoed or subsequently altered by even the same president who signed it into law in the first place. And yet, that is, in some respects, exactly what happened here. The president modified the law. He was too impatient; too unwilling; too unwilling to defer to the legislative branch; too unwilling to respect the oath that he took uphold, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic; too disrespectful of that very document, or founding document, that has fostered the greatest nation the world has ever known. Now, he suggested that he needed to do this because the law wasn't ready to be implemented. He later suggested that he did this because he had to do it, because, as he put it, under normal conditions, under more ideal conditions, obviously the thing to do if you wanted to change the law, would be to go back to that branch of government charged with making that law, that branch of government that passed it into law in the first place: Congress. But as he pointed out, these are not ideal circumstances. No, they're not ideal. They're not ideal because he controls only one branch, one division of the legislative branch of government: The Senate. The Senate is under control of his party and the House of Representatives isn't. This can hardly justify this kind of blatant usurpation of legislative authority. This can hardly justify a president, in taking upon himself, the sole task of changing legislation. It is, in fact, an act of legislation unto itself, and yet this is what he did by the stroke of the executive pen. This is exactly the kind of thing that the founding fathers tried to protect against, this kind of unilateral action by executive, this kind of accumulation of power in the hands of a few, or, in this case, the hands of one person and yet this is what he did. He's done it on several occasions. Now, some people have suggested, well, if what the president did was wrong, if it was unconstitutional, it wasn't authorized by the Constitution -  which it wasn't, it wasn't authorized by the act of Congress, either the Affordable Care Act or some other statute, and it wasn't - then perhaps the courts can and should and must and will remedy the constitutional problem embodied in that act. Well, there are some problems with that. First of all, as we all know, not every unconstitutional act can necessarily be remedied in court. Many unconstitutional acts are themselves outside the purview of the federal court's ability to review. In some cases, an unconstitutional act might be something that the courts can consider a nonjusticiable question, not subject to the court's authority or something that the courts aren't willing to wade into. In other circumstances, an unconstitutional act might occur in a situation in which no one party is likely to be able to develop and establish Article 3 standing in order to challenge that unconstitutional act. In order to establish Article 3 standing, in other words, in order to establish the right to sue in federal court, Article 3 of the Constitution requires that the plaintiff be able to establish that the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact, and that the injury in fact is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant, and, thirdly, that is subject to redress by the authority of the court. In this circumstance, one must ask the question: Does anyone really have standing? Can anyone really establish the kind of standing in order to challenge the president's refusal to implement and enforce the the individual mandate while refusing, declining to enforce and implement the employer mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Who has standing to do that? Who's been harmed by that? Well, one could suggest, I suppose, that an employer might want to look into that. But most employers, when they would examine the situation, most or all employers would have to acknowledge that they've been given a reprieve. So employers, number one, are not likely to be aggrieved by it, in a sense they're not likely to feel the need to sue. And number two, if they were to try to sue, they wouldly have a very difficult times, it seems for me, establishing in a court of law the fact that they had suffered an injury in fact. Who else might do it? Most constitutional scholars would conclude, probably correctly, that a member of congress would lack Article 3 standing under the applicable Supreme Court precedents, under Flast v. Cohen and other Supreme Court precedents. Merely being a member of Congress is not necessarily enough to give a person Article 3 standing. And so I think it's very difficult to reach the conclusion that anyone, at least obviously, has Article 3 standing to sue. So we can't necessarily rely on the courts to be able to undo this constitutional damage, to be able to seek an adequate remedy in a court of law for this blatant insult to the United States Constitution. Even if somebody could get standing and come in front of an Article 3 federal judge and convince that judge that they've got standing, would that federal court be in the position to dispose of this case within the roughly one-year period in which this provision of the law is effectively suspended. It takes a lot of time to litigate a case all the way through to completion, and I think it's doubtful whether somebody would be able to bring an action in federal court and have it be federally litigated, all the way through to judgment in the roughly one-year period in which it still would be relevant. And if it couldn't get it done in that time period, then it would appear very likely that the case would be rendered moot at that point. And so this, quite simply, is the kind of case in which no federal suit is likely to be brought, and if one is brought, it would likely fail. And so that's yet another reason why we as a Congress ought to be looking very closely at this. You see, because this is one of those many instances in which it's possible that someone can violate the U.S. Constitution, here the President of the United States, without the courts being in a position to effectively remedy that constitutional defect. Now, we too, as members of this body, have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and in my mind that means doing more than simply refraining from that which the Supreme Court of the United States would obviously invalidate. And to my mind, that means more than simply saying, well, if someone has violated the U.S. Constitution, then I'm sure the courts will take care of it. We simply know that isn't true. We know that in many, many circumstances, the courts are not in a position to be able to remedy a constitutional defect, to be able to remedy a blatant insult to the Constitution and an absolute violation of the constitution's provisions. And so we need to continue to hold this president accountable when he fails, quite blatantly in this circumstance, to do that which the Constitution requires. This is a question that I think is particularly important, not only in light of how this particular act of Congress came to be, not only in light of how it was enacted and the fact that it's 2700 pages long and has now resulted in 27,000 pages of regulatory implementing text, but also in light of the fact that it was challenged in court. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was challenged in court as to its constitutionality. But it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a most unusual fashion. Let's talk about that for just a moment. A number of states and a few others banded together and challenged in federal court a few years ago Congress's power to enact certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Among those provisions that they challenged were the individual mandate. The argument was, Congress lacks the power asserted by Congress in the Affordable Care Act pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 - the Commerce Clause - to tell individual americans that they must buy a product: health insurance. They must buy not just any health insurance but that specific kind of health insurance that Congress in its infinite wisdom deemed absolutely essential for every American to purchase. So they asserted that Congress lacks this power under the Commerce Clause. The lawsuit also alleged that Congress lacked the power to tell states that the states had to expand their Medicaid programs and gave the states no choice; that this too, violated the constitution; that it exceeded certain limitations on Congress's power because the courts have long recognized that Congress lacks the power to commandeer the states' legislative and administrative machinery in order to carry out a federal program. Congress has the power to encourage states to do this, but it lacks the power to direct a state to do ""x"" or ""y"" or ""z."" We can't just tell a state to do something just because we want it to be done. We might be able to persuade the state to do something. We might even be able to fund the state, to offer funding in case a state wants to participate in a given program, but we lack the power to dictate to a state that it do such a thing. In this circumstance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unmistakable in its clarity. It told the states that they had to expand their programs. So these two core pieces, these two core aspects of this judicial challenge made their way up through the federal court system, made their way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The court decided these two issues, as I said a moment ago, in a most unusual fashion. Turning to the Commerce Clause issue, the court addressed that issue right after addressing another issue that was sort of a jurisdictional question, an introductory question. The court had to determine, first of all, before it even got to the merits of the constitutional challenge, as to the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it had to address the question of whether or not the individual mandate and the enforcement mechanism attached to it could fairly be characterized as a tax for purposes relevant to the so-called Anti-injunction Act. This is a Civil War-era statute that basically says that anytime someone wants to challenge a tax in federal court, they have to wait until such time as that tax is actually being collected, and then that challenge is brought as against the attempted enforcement of the tax statute. Well, the Supreme Court of the United States using a century's worth of jurisprudence, looked at the language of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, looked at the manner in which it was written and easily concluded -- no, this is not a tax. This is a penalty. And because it's a penalty and it's not a tax, we, the court, may proceed to consider the merits of the arguments brought up in this case, the merits of this challenge brought as to Congress's authority fell none to enact the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. And so the court quickly dispensed with that issue and reached the merits of the constitutional question before it. The court then went on to conclude that Congress does in fact lack the power under the Commerce Clause, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution to tell individual Americans that they must buy a particular product: health insurance. Not just any type of health insurance, but the specific kind of health insurance that congress told Americans they have to buy in the Affordable Care Act. Well, the court fairly easy and in my opinion correctly, says that Congress lacks that power because of the fact that the power Congress has to regulate interstate commerce is meaningfully different than the power to compel individuals to enter into commerce, to regulate inactivity, to punish inactivity, to punish the failure to buy a particular product that the people might not want to buy. You see, for a long time, we had this understanding as americans that the power given to Congress was in fact limited. You look at all the authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution. The overwhelming majority of which can be found in Article 1, Section 8. All of these are limited, and they were limited with good reason. They were limited with good reason because that really was -- played a very large part, it played a very significant role in how and why we became a country. We broke away from Great Britain, not just because we grew tired of having a monarch, but because we grew tired of the authority of parliament, a parliament which not only refused to grant us any representation but also a parliament that refused to acknowledge any natural limit on its power to regulate us. And it did in fact regulate us and it regulated us heavily, mercilessly. It taxed us overwhelmingly, and it refused to recognize any meaningful -- it failed, it refused to recognize any meaningful limit on its own authority. So that's one of the reasons why we became our own country, and it's one of the reasons why the founding fathers put in place this system in which this national legislative body would be vested with a few enumerated powers. The founding generation understood that each of those powers would in fact be limited. So much so, in fact, that James Madison described the powers given to Congress as few and defined and characterized those reserved to the states as numerous and indefinite. During the first 140, 150 years or so of our republic's existence, we, as a people, continued to recognize the necessarily limited nature of of Congress's power. Much of that started to change during the new deal era in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the assistance of democratic majorities in the House and in the Senate, pushed afford with a very progressive agenda. This agenda  expanded not only the role of government in general but also the role of the federal government in particular. Initially, the Supreme Court resisted, and the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that the powers granted to Congress under the spending clause and the Commerce Clause were in fact limited. But the more F.D.R. And the more Congress pushed back against the Supreme Court, the more the Supreme Court seemed inclined to relent. And ultimately we saw the Supreme Court of the United States back down in the late-1930's from its -- what had been previously more rigorous, more restrictive interpretations of the spending clause and of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ended up adopting a set of rules that would basically say that as long as Congress was acting broadly within the field of what could be loosely considered a regulation of interstate commerce, that the courts would stay away from second-guessing Congress's determinations. The court, starting out with a case called NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel in 1937 and culminating with another case, Wickard v. Filburn five years later in 1942 and ended up concluding that Congress may without interference from the courts regulate any activity that when measured and evaluated in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Regardless of whether the discrete activity in question might actually occur entirely intrastate, congress would be able to regulate that activity pursuant to its commerce clause authority, regardless of how intrastate that activity might be when viewed in isolation. Under this very broad interpretation, Congress's power could, in a sense, be viewed as extending to virtually every aspect of human existence. After all, almost everything we do, when measured in the aggregate, might well be understood to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And yet, even under that broad analysis, that couldn't extend to what was being regulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in the individual mandate provision, which was inactivity. Now remember this is an enormous breadth that we're talking about that the Supreme Court said Congress could, without interference from the courts, regulate under its commerce clause authority. In Wickard v. Filburn what was at issue was the cultivation of wheat. Farmers would be severely restricted in how much wheat they could grow, how much they could produce of this or that agricultural commodity and there was a farmer named Roscoe Filburn who committed a grave offense against the republic. His offense did not involve dealing drugs, didn't involve murder or kidnapping. His offense involved growing too much wheat. Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than Congress in its infinite wisdom viewed appropriate for any american to grow. And he was fined many thousands of dollars, which during the new deal era was an enormous amount of money. Because of the fact that he grew too much wheat. Now, Roscoe Filburn was fortunate in that he had access to some good lawyers, and his lawyers advised him on this and they represented him aggressively and competently in court and what they said, what they argued relying on true facts was that yes, sure, our client, Roscoe Filburn, did, in fact, grow wheat in excess of the limit imposed by federal law. But, significantly, that wheat, the amount of wheat that he grew in excess of the grain production limit applicable to his farm that year, was grain that never entered interstate commerce. In fact, it never entered commerce at all. You see, that grain never even left Roscoe Filburn's farm. He used it on his farm to feed his family, to feed his livestock, and he used the remainder, held onto the remainder of it to use as seed for a subsequent planting season. So in a very real sense that wheat was not part of interstate commerce at all. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of the United States lacking nothing in imagination said that even that wheat was within Congress' almighty grasp within the all-knowing, wise reach of the federal sovereign. What the court said was that the wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn in excess of the grain production quota was itself something that when viewed in the aggregate could substantially affect interstate commerce. In other words, if lots of farmers everywhere just like Roscoe Filburn grew too much wheat, even if their wheat never entered interstate commerce, the growing of all that excess wheat would inevitably have an impact on the supply and the demand and ultimately the price and the availability of wheat on the interstate market. Therefore, even that wheat which was entirely locally grown and locally consumed would be subject to Congress's reach. Wickard v. Filburn thus erected an extraordinarily low barrier for Congress to clear in establishing that it had properly invoked its authority under the Commerce Clause and yet even that extraordinarily low barrier was high enough to stop Congress from acting pursuant to the Commerce Clause in enacting the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Thus ended the Supreme Court's analysis in June, 2012, when it ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional limits under the Commerce Clause iin enacting the individual mandate. Significantly, this was the third time in about seventy-five years, only the third time since Wickard v. Filburn in which the Supreme Court recognized that Congress had overstepped its limits under the Commerce Clause. It was a rare thing. it was foreseeable because the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went so far beyond anything that had been seen before. And yet it was only the third time in the last 75 years in which that had happened. But then something different happened - something that very few expected, or that very few people on either side of the aisle in this body, on either side of the political divide in America generally expected. After concluding that Congress lacked this power under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court under the pen of Chief Justice John Roberts, proceeded to analyze the government's backup argument. That is the argument that even if as the court had now concluded Congress lacked the power to do this under the Commerce Clause, that Congress still had the power to do this consistent with its power to impose taxes. The court went on to conclude that Congress did have this power. Strangely, the court also went on to conclude that that's essentially what Congress had done here. Now, this was odd on many levels. Number one, the court had already concluded as it had to conclude in order to proceed to the case and in order to exercise jurisdiction over this case, prior to the implementation of the law, prior to the collection of this alleged tax, that it was, in fact, not a tax but a penalty. So it was very strange that the court was now basically saying ""Okay, it's a penalty and not a tax for some purposes, but it's a tax and not a penalty for other purposes.' And yet that's what the court did. It was also strange that the court did this for the additional reason that Congress had considered proposals, legislative proposals in a different, earlier iteration of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would have enforced the individual mandate by means of a tax. Congress considered language that would have done that. Congress knew and still knows how to enact legislative language that imposes a new tax. And yet when it tried to use that language, language that under a hundred years' worth of jurisprudence everyone understands would have imposed a tax, Congress could not get the votes to pass it, even in what was then a Congress in which the Democratic party dominated both houses. Even in that Congress, they tried but failed to get the requisite number of votes to pass the individual mandate enforced by means of a tax. They couldn't do it. And it was therefore really odd that the Supreme Court of the United States would interpret what Congress couldn't pass as a tax in such a way as to make it a tax for constitutional purposes when Congress itself didn't have the votes to do it. Now, in order to pass legislation raising revenue -- in other words, in order to pass legislation imposing a new tax, the Constitution requires that legislation of that sort originate in the House of Representatives. Why is this? I think most who look at the issue would agree it has a lot to do with the fact that the House of Representatives is the entity within our federal government structure that is by design most representative of the people. In the Senate we have elections every six years. In the House it's every two years. And from the outset, the House was the body in which the people were represented because, of course, at the outset the Senate was the body in which the states were represented, that's no longer the case, where we are directly elected by the people. But it was always the case and still is the case that tax legislation must start in the House. Because it's the body closest to the people and most responsive to the needs and the desires and the concerns of the people. It's therefore quite ironic that this law, this tax as the Supreme Court called it, was put into place as a tax not by the body within the federal government that is most accountable to the people, the House of Representatives, but instead by the body within the federal the federal government that is the very least accountable to the people, the courts, the Supreme Court of the United States. This I believe amounted to a usurpation of constitutional authority. This I believe amounted to a betrayal of the judicial oaths of the five robe-wearing men and women who signed on to that opinion. They did not have the power to legislate. They did not have the power to create a tax. They did not have the power to create out of whole cloth tax language out of penalty language, language that under a century's worth of jurisprudence the court's own precedents carrying stare decisis effect made clear was a penalty, not a tax and that's what the court did. Now, when people discover this, when they learn about it, when they hear about it, when those who dare to plow through the Supreme Court's opinion and understand what happens, they will inevitably ask how can the court do this? Does the court have that power, the power to legislate, the power to impose a tax where Congress has not chosen to impose a tax? No, the court doesn't have that power. How can the court do that? why did the court do that? Well, the court did that because it could. Not because it could in the sense it had the constitutional power to do it but because the court as an exercise of raw political power chose to do so and did do so. This was a tragic day in American history. A day that we should not soon forget. And a day that we should do all in our power to remedy. This decision was wrong, it was unconscionable. As a matter of jurisprudence, it was unforgivable. The court then went on to address the challenge related to Congress's power to compel the states to expand their Medicaid programs. Now, Medicaid as we all know is a program that is partially funded by the federal government but administered and partially funded by the states. In the Affordable Care Act, Congress directed the states, whether the states were so inclined or not, to expand their Medicaid program. It gave them no choice but to expand them and to expand them to a very significant degree - to expand them in a way that would bring about not only significant costs to the states over the years but also very substantial administrative burdens as well. And yet the Affordable Care Act left the states with no choice. You must do this. Just do it because we're Congress and we're all powerful and have you to do it because we say so. Well, there is this anti-commandeering principle embedded within our constitutional jurisprudence in the enumerated powers doctrine, partially in the tenth amendment as well that Congress lacks the power to commandeer a state's administrative or legislative machinery to put in place, to legislate, or to administer a federal program. The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that Congress had violated this anti-commandeering principle in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And it did so in a way that left the states with no other alternative. So this was the second constitutional defect. In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But here again the Supreme Court chose to rewrite the law a second time in order to save it. Ordinarily what a court would do in this circumstance -- in that circumstance after concluding that Congress has violated this anti-commandeering principle and this aspect of the Affordable Care Act was, in fact, unconstitutional, the court would be under an obligation to go into what's called severability analysis, to analyze whether, to what extent or in what way Congress might have intended to allow the rest of the statute's provisions to operate independently notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the provision deemed invalid by the court. In this case, quite stunningly, the Supreme Court engaged in no such analysis. It never reached the severability question even though it had been the question of extensive briefing and conversation at oral argument. The supreme court didn't get into severability at all. The court decided that it just didn't need to. It didn't need to because the court rewrote the statute in order to make it constitutional. The court wrote into the law a carveout provision that simply said we're going to read this law as though it gave the states an optout provision, as though it gave the states an option of deciding whether or not to expand their own Medicaid programs. The only problem is, the text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contained absolutely no such language. You can read through all 2,700 pages of that law and you won't find any opt-out provision like what I just described. No, the court created this, too, from whole cloth. The court did this in the absence of any text. This, too, amounted to a betrayal of the judicial oaths of those who signed their names to that opinion. This, too, was a blatantly unconstitutional act that was an insult to the high judicial office that those individuals occupy. That, too, is an insult to the constitutional system which has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. We can't lightly overlook crimes against the Constitution. We can't lightly overlook the usurpation of authority by the few. We can't lightly overlook that laws, our most fundamental laws, have been openly flouted in this case, nor will we soon forget the fact that that has occurred here. So all of these are reasons why some of us feel so strongly, so passionately that this law, started with some unconstitutional premises and has had its constitutional defects compounded over and over and over again, as you've had the supreme court of the united states rewriting it not just once but twice in order to save it. And as you've had the President of the United States rewriting it, in effect legislating through the stroke of the executive pen, several times now because, among other things, he says the law is not ready to implement. He doesn't have the power to legislate on his own any more than the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to legislate. Any more than the Queen of England has the right to legislate for the United States of America. The legislative power belongs here in the Congress of the United States and we must exercise that power and when someone else takes that power from us, when someone else independently exercises the legislative power, we must guard it jealously. We must protect it. I don't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. I don't care whether you are President Obama's biggest fan or his most aggressive critic. The office that we occupy here requires us, compels us to defend our institutional prerogative as federal lawmakers. And when someone else exercises that power, the power that does not belong to them but to us, we must protect it. Not because it is ours but because it belongs to those we represent. It belongs to those who elected us to serve here, those who elected us and not someone else to make laws. Whenever to any degree we overlook the fact that someone else has legislated, someone not vested with law-making authority, we do ourselves and our country a disservice, and we reflect a certain cavalier disregard for the oath that we've taken to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which was put in place to make the men and women of the United States of America free. There's another issue related to all of this that I think we need to touch on here, which is the issue of excessive delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch. You see, in some circumstances, we have a situation in which Congress may voluntarily relinquish some of its law-making power to the executive branch. I say ""it may do that,"" ""it can do that."" That's not necessarily saying that it should do that. Perhaps the most influential political philosopher in America's founding era was Charles de Montesquieu. Charles de Montesquieu wrote that the power to legislate is the power to make laws, not the power to make legislators. He recognized, I think, that there was a natural temptation among elected lawmakers to want to pass the buck along to someone else, to want to give to someone else the task of making law. And we do this sometimes when we pass an extraordinarily broad law and then we direct some executive branch agency to simply fill in the gaps, to effectively make the laws. The Affordable Care Act is replete with instances in which this kind of thing occurs, in which certain broad parameters are spelled out and in which we then say to this department or that department that it will have the power to promulgate rules carrying the force of generally applicable law which that same department or that same agency will then have the power to enforce. That's part of how we end up with 20,000 pages of implementing regulations already under Obamacare. 20,000 pages and counting. Because we've got a lot of instances in which we've delegated de facto law-making power. That, too, presents it's own kind of constitutional problem, not necessarily a constitutional problem that the courts are inclined to recognize but a sort of constitutional problem nonetheless. Because the more that we delegate de facto law-making power to an executive branch agency, the less we see that anyone is accountable to the people for our laws. One can imagine, for example, if taken to an extreme, what this could look like. Let's suppose that we just one day decide, you know, we're tired of debating and discussing and voting on and having to pass laws that are controversial, laws that are specific, laws that require us to get our hands dirty, laws that require us to make difficult decisions. So once and for all we're going to pass a law that everyone can get behind. It will be called ""The Law of Good Laws."" A law that says we shall have good laws. And we hereby delegate to the herewith created U.S. Department of Good Laws the power to make and enforce good laws. We then pass that and we give this Department of Good Laws the power to issue regulations and to enforce those regulations. This is actually not all that different from what we do all the time. And what's been done under Obamacare to a very significant degree, about 20,000 pages regulations so far, and that's still building. One of the reasons this is a problem, you see, is because when the people don't like our laws, they can come to us and they can hold us accountable for laws that we may have voted to enact. They can choose to replace us with someone else, someone who wouldn't vote for that kind of law the next time they have the chance. But when the law they don't like is not one that we have enacted but is instead one that has been promulgated by an executive branch agency, the people come to complain to us. In that circumstance we say, ""Well, don't look at me; go to the executive branch agency, they're the ones that did it."" They see that the people occupying the executive branch agency as well-mannered, well-educated, and well-intentioned, and well-groomed as they might be are not subject to elections. They can't be voted out. They can't be fired by the people. That's why we're entrusted with the law-making power. It is not necessarily that we're the best-equipped in every way to do it. It's that we stand subject to elections in six-year intervals in the case of the Senate, in two-year intervals in the case of the House of Representatives. It's yet another reason why we ought to be more resistant, more concerned when it comes time to enacting legislation that delegates an excessive amount of de facto law making power to an executive branch agency. Yet another reason why I think we need to pass something akin to the proposal that has been introduced as the REINS Act. This act would say that any time an executive branch agency issues a new rule, a new regulation deemed by the Office of Management and Budget to constitute a major rule, that that major rule will take effect if and only if it's first passed into law by the House, and by the Senate, and then signed in to law by the president. Then and only then, do I think that we'll be able to start to reclaim that legislative power which is rightfully ours and that, more importantly, the American people will be able to hold Congress accountable for the responsibilities properly given to Congress under the Constitution. This is about allowing the people to be governed by those that they choose. When we delegate excessively our own law-making power to executive branch agencies, we deprive the people of of their right to have their laws written and enacted by men and women of their own choosing. Now, this is important, and it should be important, to people of all political backgrounds, people at every end, at every step, at every stage along the political continuum. This is an issue that is neither Democratic nor Republican, it is neither liberal or conservative. It is simply american. When we pass laws, we pass laws through democratically elected senators and representatives. That we don't do it through nameless, faceless bureaucrats who, regardless of how well-educated and well-intentioned they may be, do not serve the people in the sense that they're not elected by the people. They're not subject to reelection. They're not subject to dismissal by the people. We must hold that power here. That power belongs to us, not to bureaucrats. It belongs to us, not the president. It belongs to us and not to nine judges wearing black robes across the street in the Supreme Court of the United States. These are some of the things that are at stake. These are some of the reasons why it's so significant that we have this prolonged, protracted effort by the President of the United States to usurp power that is not his own. We must not facilitate the president, in his ongoing effort to aggregate power, to accumulate power within the executive branch of government that is not his own. That's why we need to stand up to the president against some of these nominees that he pushed forward again and again and again trying to trample over the rights of the minority. We have to do that. We have an obligation to stand up to the president, especially because he's taking power that is not his own and he's doing it, among other things, to move forward with Obamacare, a law that a majority of the American people have never approved of and a law that the American people are growing steadily more against every single day.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=13c4f685-47e6-408f-a8c9-053a324217a5,Lee Names Derek Brown as Deputy Chief of Staff/State Director,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY – Today, Senator Mike Lee announced that current Utah State Representative Derek Brown has accepted the position of Deputy Chief of Staff and State Director for the senator’s office.  Rep. Brown will resign his seat in the Utah Legislature effective January 2, 2014 and will assume his new role on January 3rd.  Senator Lee’s Chief of Staff Boyd Matheson had been filling the State Director duties for the past year. Senator Lee commented, “I am thrilled to have Derek Brown on board.  I have known him since I helped recruit him to Sidley & Austin 11 years ago and look forward to what he will contribute to our staff, our constituents and leaders within the State of Utah.  Derek is a great talent and understands the legislative process as well as critical functions of a senate office.” In addition to his stellar legal career, Derek Brown served as legal counsel to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch and former U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (Full biography below). “Derek’s appointment is another important step in the strategy we began last year to move Senator Lee’s positive reform agenda forward,” said Senator Lee’s chief of staff Boyd Matheson. “Derek will be an integral part of our senior staff in executing our strategy and connecting it to the people of Utah.” “While it was a difficult decision to step down from the state legislature, joining Senator Lee and his team at this time with this agenda is an amazing opportunity,” said Brown. “The Senator has established himself as a national thought leader and important player in the Republican Party.  I am excited to work with community, government and business leaders around the state to help them engage with the senator on this important agenda for Utah and the country.  It is a critical time in our history and Senator Lee has put forward positive solutions I believe are certain to be part of solving many of the challenges we face as a nation. ” Senator Lee concluded by saying, “I have extraordinary staff in Washington and Utah who are all committed to serving the people of Utah.  I have appreciated Boyd pulling double-duty for the past year and value his vision, wisdom and insight.  With Derek joining the team we are well positioned for the next phase of our efforts.” Derek Brown’s Biography Representative Derek Brown currently serves in the Utah House of Representatives, where he serves as Vice Chair of the Rules Committee, Chair of the Occupational Professional Licensing Review Committee, and on both the Business/Labor and Law Enforcement Committees.  He is also Of Counsel with Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard Moss LLP.  Derek previously served as Counsel for Senator Robert F. Bennett in Washington, D.C., counsel for Senator Orrin Hatch in Salt Lake City, Utah, and practiced constitutional and appellate law with Sidley Austin LLP in its Washington, D.C. office.  He also served as law clerk for Judge Ruggero Aldisert on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  He has taught as an Adjunct Professor of law at Brigham Young University since 2007.  He currently serves as the Board President for the Utah Connections Academy, on the Board of Trustees for the Hale Center Theater, and on the Advisory Board for Intermountain Homecare.  He and his wife, Emilie de Azevedo, have four children.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=1e3f965f-0aec-45f2-827b-ccdec0af9815,Lee Introduces Act to Protect Religious Liberty,2013-12-12,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee and eleven original cosponsors introduced legislation to protect religious organizations from discrimination by the federal government for supporting traditional marriage.  The “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” bars the government from denying any person or group tax-exempt status for exercising their religious conscience rights. The bill is cosponsored by Senators Vitter, Rubio, Roberts, Hatch, Coburn, Blunt, Inhofe, Wicker, Risch, Cochran and Graham. “This bill protects the rights of individuals and organizations from religious discrimination by the federal government,” said Senator Lee. “Those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage deserve respect and tolerance.  It is critical that we clarify the law to ensure that their fundamental civil liberties are not at risk.” A companion bill, HR 3133, was introduced in the House by Rep. Raul Labrador and has 92 cosponsors. The “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act” has been endorsed by the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops, Family Research Council, National Organization For Marriage, Heritage Action, Concerned Women For America, The Ethics And Religious Liberty Commission Of The Southern Baptist Convention, and Liberty Counsel Action.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6c80f890-66af-4bcc-aff0-ecd144cb0aac,Lee Opposes House-Senate Budget Deal,2013-12-11,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Lee released the following statement on the budget deal recently announced by the Chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees:“Rather than enacting reforms to make government more efficient, the budget deal makes more government more expensive. Sequestration is far from ideal, but at least it forced Congress get serious about excessive spending. This deal cuts into the modest gains taxpayers have won since 2011, by trading concrete spending reductions over the next two years for theoretical spending cuts a decade from now. In the meantime, the deal raises taxes on all air travellers, so that Congress can continue to ignore both waste in discretionary spending and the ticking fiscal time-bomb of our entitlement programs. “I do not envy House Republicans in their task of negotiating a budget with a Senate majority and president hostile to the very idea of having one. But the deal they have struck is not one I can support. “If there is a silver lining in this deal, it at least further confirms the need for Republicans to finally develop a comprehensive conservative reform agenda. Real reform involves not simply cutting dysfunctional programs, but fixing them so government doesn’t cost so much in the first place. And as Democrats continue to hide from those reforms at the behest of their special-interest clients, Republicans must begin to advance our ideas openly and transparently, not behind closed doors up against artificial deadlines set by the forces of the status quo.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=267cfef6-86a3-4fb6-b651-88eeeaabb9d2,Hatch Statement at Senate Finance Committee Hearing Considering John Koskinen For IRS Commissioner,2013-12-10,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today delivered the following remarks during a Senate Finance Committee hearing considering the nomination of John Koskinen to serve as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (Click the image above to watch Hatch’s remarks) Today we are here to discuss the future of the Internal Revenue Service and to hear testimony from President Obama’s nominee to head that agency, John Koskinen.  Mr. Koskinen, I don’t think that I have to tell you that, if you are confirmed, you will have a difficult job ahead of you.  The IRS is one of the most powerful agencies in our government.  Consequently, it is both feared and loathed by millions of Americans.  That being the case, it is vital that the IRS maintain its credibility. The American people should be able to trust that the IRS will enforce our nation’s tax laws without bias or prejudice.  Any hint of impropriety on the part of the IRS or its leadership damages its credibility and that of our entire government.  Unfortunately, over the last few years, the credibility of the IRS has been eroded through actions taken by the IRS itself and the agency has, in large part, lost the trust of the American people.    As proof, one needs to look no further than the IRS political targeting scandal currently under investigation by this committee.  When this scandal was revealed, President Obama said, “I have got no patience with it, I will not tolerate it, and we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.""  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed similar views on the Senate floor, stating: “I have full confidence in the ability of Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee to get to the bottom of this matter and recommend appropriate action.”  I share both President Obama’s desire to find out exactly what happened and Leader Reid’s view of the Finance Committees investigative abilities.  Indeed, if there is one thing we should all be able to agree on, it is that that IRS should enforce the tax laws as they are written by Congress without consideration of political views.  That being the case, I had hoped to hold off on proceeding with this nomination until the Finance Committee’s bipartisan investigation had concluded.  The confirmation of an IRS Commissioner should not, and must not, be a partisan issue.  Like I said, with an agency this powerful, the leadership should have the confidence of members of both parties.   I had hoped that the next commissioner would begin his time with the benefit of the findings of our investigation so that he would be in a better position to fix the problems we’ve uncovered and to move the agency forward with strong bipartisan support.  Chairman Baucus has chosen to go a different direction, which is, of course, his right.  My hope is that this will not impede our efforts.  Mr. Koskinen, I hope that today you will commit to continuing the cooperation the committee has enjoyed thus far in its investigation and that you’ll encourage others to do the same. As far as I’m concerned, the top priority for the next IRS Commissioner should be to restore the agency’s damaged credibility with the American people and their trust that the actions taken by the IRS are fair and impartial.  Toward that end, it is essential that we continue to receive full and open cooperation in our investigation.  There are many other issues the next leader of the IRS will have to address.  For example, there is the IRS’s significant role in the implementation of Obamacare.  If what we’ve seen thus far is any indication, this is going to be a difficult proposition, both in terms of operation and enforcement.   Just last week the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report that found that the IRS has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent Affordable Care Act premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people’s personal information would be at risk.  Insurers and others have raised questions about the income verification for the premium subsidies.  I have also raised this concern on a number of occasions.  Similar tax subsidy programs – including, for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit – have improper payment rates as high as 25 percent.  Can we expect the same for the Obamacare premium subsidies? These are just a few of the many potential issues IRS will be facing as implementation continues. On top of that, there are the proposed regulations addressing the political activities of tax-exempt organizations.  These proposals have been controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the widespread doubt as to whether the IRS is able to perform its duties in an independent, non-partisan fashion.  Mr. Koskinen, I hope to get a sense of your views on these and other issues during the course of today’s hearing.  Like I said, the IRS is an agency rife with problems, most of which are self-inflicted.  If you are confirmed, I hope that you will work jointly with Congress – and with members of both parties – to fix these problems.   Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=a261beb0-21b7-46d7-871a-03cbaf2635fe,The Greatest Snow on Earth,2013-12-09,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"With record breaking snowfall over the past few weeks, it’s no wonder Utah is said to have “The Greatest Snow on Earth.” The Utah ski season is here and along with the holidays, comes the famous powder snow that brings so much joy while providing attractions for Utahns and visitors throughout the state. Although many winter events are available, the popular legacy of downhill skiing always seems to be a Utah favorite. Before skiing became a sport for Utah, it acted as a means of travel across Utah’s mountains. In the early 1870’s, miners and trappers would navigate their way across the snow covered canyons. This rich heritage brought over by Norwegian immigrants quickly transformed into a recreational activity for those seeking the thrill of speed or even the beautiful landscape views of the valleys below. Utah is especially lucky to have 14 world-class ski and snowboard resorts. Most of these resorts are within close proximity of each other, allowing skiers to visit several throughout the season. For 2013-2014, Forbes Magazine named four Utah ski resorts among the top 10 in the nation while Ski Magazine named eight Utah ski resorts among the top in the west. Along with these awards, we are also grateful for the boost skiing gives to Utah’s economy through tourism and the need for equipment to help carry out the ski season. Although skiing is the most popular winter activity, there is much more to snow sports for Utah. Cross-country skiing, ice skating, downhill tubing and snowmobiling are some other winter sports available. Over a decade ago, Salt Lake City, Utah was proud to host the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Being chosen for the ability to hold games with the conditions needed, Utah became the center of the sports world and since then, the legacy venues used are still available. The Utah Olympic Park, located near Park City, was the home of the training site for many Olympic athletes. Still acting as an official US Olympic Committee facility, visitors can watch aspiring Olympians train, participate in a sports camp and even take a 70 mph ride on a bobsled. The park also houses two museums, highlighting the 2002 games as well as ski history. The Utah Olympic Oval, located in Kearns, is where the world speed skating took place during the games. Today, the 400-meter track is open to anyone who would like to take a class in figure skating, curling, or take a lap around the rink. Soldier’s Hollow located in Heber Valley, was another location for the games and still contains cross-country ski trails as well as long tubing lanes. This Nordic skiing venue is enjoyed by many year-round. The Peaks Ice Arena in Provo, has two Olympic-size ice sheets where visitors can participate in ice skating, ice hockey, floor hockey, figure skating and broom ball. The Ogden Ice Sheet was the site of the Olympic Curling events. This year-round community ice recreational center is especially fun during the winter time. I am proud to represent such an incredible state with vast history during this season. I support the winter sports industry and all it does for Utah’s economy. Whether you are a participator of these sports or would rather watch these events from the inside, I hope we all remember the great place we live that holds “The Greatest Snow on Earth.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-the-passing-of-nelson-mandela,Stewart Statement on the Passing of Nelson Mandela,2013-12-05,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov Washington, D.C. – Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement regarding the passing of Nelson Mandela: ""I'm saddened to hear of the passing of Nelson Mandela. He was a courageous leader who did so much for South Africa and was an example to so many around the world. On a personal note, I'll always remember some great words spoken by Mr. Mandela, 'I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.' I send condolences to his family and to the people of South Africa.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004329/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363564,Bishop Calls on Secretary Jewell to Further Examine the National Park Service’s Erroneous Comments on Hydraulic Fracturing,2013-12-05,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Sally Jewell today received a letter from Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, requesting further information about the protocol and review process for the submission of official comments by the DOI and related agencies. The letter stems from the recent discovery that the National Park Service used unsubstantiated data from a New York Times opinion piece in official comments made to the Bureau of Land Management.  In a September 05, 2013 letter to NPS Director Jon Jarvis, Congressman Bishop highlighted that the comments from the NPS to the BLM used the erroneous information to make a case against hydraulic fracturing. Congressman Bishop recently received a letter from Director Jarvis stating that the comments were made in error and would be withdrawn.   Excerpts of the letter: The NPS comments enabled the false narrative that hydraulic fracturing is not regulated and is unsafe.  On August 29, 2013, just six days after the NPS comments were filed, the Independent Petroleum Association of America outlined, in a letter to the NPS, the plethora of inaccuracies included in the NPS comments.  On September 6, 2013, I sent a letter to NPS Director Jarvis requesting the withdrawal of the comments because of the well-documented inaccuracies.  It’s further troubling that the NPS lacks a system of data accountability and quality control.  Director Jarvis wrote in the November 13, 2013 letter: “I did not, nor did anyone from management, review the comments”.  This is very puzzling and raises further questions and concerns. view the letter here",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044459/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-innovation-act-make-reforms-our-patent-system,House Passes Innovation Act to Make Reforms to our Patent System,2013-12-05,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – The House of Representatives today approved H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 325-91. This bipartisan bill takes steps to combat the ever increasing problem of abusive patent litigation. House Judiciary Committee Chairman and chief sponsor of the Innovation Act Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), and Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) applauded the bill’s passage. Chairman Goodlatte: “In recent years, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of weak or poorly-granted patents by so-called patent trolls to file numerous patent infringement lawsuits against American businesses with the hopes of securing a quick payday.  Everyone from independent inventors, to start-ups, to mid and large sized businesses face this constant threat. “The enactment of the Innovation Act is something I consider central to U.S. competiveness, job creation, and our nation’s future economic security.  The bipartisan legislation takes meaningful steps to address the abusive practices that have damaged our patent system and resulted in significant economic harm to our nation.  I am encouraged by the overwhelming support the Innovation Act received in the House and I look forward to working with the Senate to see that patent litigation reform legislation is signed into law.” Representative DeFazio: “I started working on the patent troll issue a few years ago when a small company in my district was forced to delay a product launch and put off hiring because the owner was fighting a patent troll that wanted several hundred thousand dollars to make their lawsuit go away.  This is not a unique situation. Patent trolls extract at least $29 billion a year from innovators. Today’s passage of the Innovation Act in the House brings us a step closer to stopping this lucrative extortion racket. I hope that the Senate will promptly take up this bipartisan bill.” Subcommittee Chairman Coble: “I’m pleased the House approved H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act.  This bipartisan proposal will curb the tide of egregious patent lawsuits.  By fortifying our patent system, we are creating more incentive for research and development, which will keep America on the cutting edge of new technologies and innovations.” Representative Lofgren: “We do have a problem among patent assertion entities, sometimes called patent trolls, and abusive lawsuits.  It’s a big issue for start-ups and entrepreneurs, and a study found more than half of these suits were against small businesses.  When a meritless lawsuit is threatened, it’s easy to extort a smaller payment to make it go away.  That’s what we’re trying to deal with in this genuinely bipartisan bill, with White House support, in order to stop an unnecessary drain on innovation that could better benefit the American economy and job creation.” Representative Chaffetz: “Patent trolls contribute nothing positive to the economy. Instead, they drain the economy through frivolous lawsuits that siphon off resources from productive American innovators and companies. Small businesses and start-up companies – who are working to create jobs and grow the economy – are being suffocated by these egregious lawsuits. The Innovation Act is a commonsense solution that protects the little guy and penalizes those who file groundless claims. I appreciate Chairman Goodlatte’s leadership in tackling this issue with wide-spread, bipartisan support and getting the bill passed.” Representative Eshoo: “When our patent system is not working in a wholesome and robust way, our collective future relative to competition, innovation and consumerism is threatened.  In 2011, patent trolls cost companies that actually innovate $29 billion to challenge or settle claims, a 400 percent increase from 2005 and a clear cut-sign that something needs to change. The Innovation Act is the solution to the problem of abusive patent litigation, and I’m proud to have introduced this bipartisan legislation with Chairman Goodlatte and other Members of Congress.” Background on the Innovation Act:  Requires plaintiffs to disclose who the owner of a patent is before litigation, so that it is clear who the real parties behind the litigation are. This will ensure that Patent Trolls cannot hide behind a web of shell companies to avoid accountability for bringing frivolous litigation. Requires plaintiffs to actually explain why they are suing a company in their court pleadings. Requires courts to make decisions about whether a patent is valid or invalid early in the litigation process so that Patent Trolls cannot drag patent cases on for years based on invalid claims.  This prevents invalid patents from being used to extort money from retailers and end users. When parties bring lawsuits or claims that have no reasonable basis in law and fact, the Innovation Act requires judges to award attorneys’ fees to the victims of the frivolous lawsuit.  The bill allows judges to waive the award of attorneys’ fees in special circumstances.  This provision applies to both plaintiffs and defendants who file frivolous claims. Requires the Judicial Conference to make rules to reduce the costs of discovery in patent litigation, so that Patent Trolls cannot use the high costs of discovery to extort money from small businesses and entrepreneurs. Creates a voluntary process for small businesses to postpone expensive patent lawsuits while their larger sellers complete similar patent lawsuits against the same plaintiffs, to protect customers who simply bought the product off-the-shelf. Requires PTO to provide educational resources for those facing abusive patent litigation claims. The Innovation Act is supported by a wide range of groups that include stakeholders from all areas of our economy representing businesses of all kinds from every corner of our country including independent inventors and innovators. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-appointed-to-the-house-appropriations-committee,Stewart Appointed to the House Appropriations Committee,2013-12-04,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) was appointed as a new member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. “I’m excited for the chance to serve on the appropriations committee and for the opportunities it offers to better oversee federal spending,” Stewart said. “As outlined in the Constitution, one of the primary functions of Congress is to manage federal funds. Specifically, the appropriations committee plays a critical and constitutionally mandated role in holding the President and his federal agencies accountable for the people’s money. It has already held more than 150 hearings this year, with a focus on making every aspect of the government justify its existence or else lose its funding. I’m excited to be a part of this effort.” Joining Stewart on the committee are Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02) and Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02). “I am pleased to welcome Representatives Amodei, Roby, and Stewart to the Committee, and look forward to working side-by-side with them as we tackle our formidable work ahead,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “Members of the Appropriations Committee have tough jobs to do, and have a great responsibility to properly fund the federal government and support the well-being of the nation. These dedicated public servants have proven their commitment to the responsible shepherding of federal tax dollars, to the regular Appropriations process, and to both the people of their districts and the American people as a whole.” “I have been extremely grateful for the opportunity to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee and as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment under the House Science, Space and Technology Committee,” Stewart continued. “These committees are all working on meaningful legislation, which I will continue to support.” The slots on the Appropriations Committee opened following the resignations of Congressmen Rodney Alexander and Jo Bonner, and the death of Defense Subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=010d3292-e0d0-4599-ada1-870ba4f84a2c,Sen. Lee Hosts Poverty Roundtable,2013-12-04,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY – Today, Senator Mike Lee hosted a roundtable with Utah citizens, experts, government officials, and community activists on the growing crisis of immobility among the poor.  The event is a continuation of Sen. Lee’s “Let’s Talk” series he began in August, taking him around the state to hear directly from Utahns about the critical issues facing the state and the country.   Today’s panel, held at the Sutherland Institute, presented an opportunity for those who work in Utah communities to fight poverty to discuss their work with Senator Lee and present ideas for solving the problems they face in promoting upward mobility among the disadvantaged.  The roundtable included representatives from Utah Department of Work Force Services, Calvary Baptist Church, Utah Food Bank, 4th Street Clinic, United Way, and Standing Together.   “America's true war on poverty began at the founding of this country,” said Senator Lee after the event. “It was our dedication to economic freedom and voluntary civil society that liberated millions of American families, opening up opportunities for the pursuit of happiness never known before or since.  In that tradition, it should be government’s role today to give struggling Americans greater access to the benefits of free enterprise, the greatest weapon against poverty ever conceived by man.”   With Senator Lee, the group discussed changes in federal and state policy to remove barriers that trap people in poverty and make upward mobility all but impossible.  Topics included welfare reform, access to quality affordable health care, removing anti-marriage biases in federal policy, ways to help keep families intact, increasing educational opportunities, and Medicaid reform.   “As the family goes, so goes society. We need to focus on the role of the father in the family,” said a representative of Standing Together. “It’s time that someone in Washington speak about moral issues. Poverty is a moral issue.” “Having federal funds helps, but the regulations that come with those funds do not help the cause. We need flexibility,” added an employee of the Department of Work Services.     Senator Lee will continue his “Let’s Talk” series this week with meetings on health care, transportation, education and patent reform.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-sponsored-provo-river-bill-passes-house,Chaffetz Sponsored Provo River Bill Passes the House,2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003817/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363288,"Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35",2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force’s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.  The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.  The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades. “Today’s announcement is the final step before the first operation squadron of the U.S. Air Force’s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,” Hatch said. “The review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I’ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.” “The Air Force’s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.  The F-35 has been referred to as the ‘backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation’ and today’s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,” said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee. ""I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,” said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Given the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.  The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004803/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363198,IN THE NEWS: Park Service director orders fracking comments withdrawn,2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis asked that comments the US Department of the Interior agency submitted about the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation regulations on public and Indian lands be withdrawn, Jarvis said in a Nov. 12 letter to US Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Bishop released the letter on Nov. 26. “The inclusion of a quote from an article on the New York Times op-ed page was inappropriate,” Jarvis wrote Bishop in response to a Sept. 6 letter the chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee’s Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee sent him. Citations of peer-review scientific studies did not include references to support technical comments that were submitted, Jarvis continued. “In addition, the comments did not receive appropriate review and were not signed,” he told Bishop. “For these reasons, I have asked that these comments be withdrawn from the record.” As he released Jarvis’ letter, Bishop said, “It concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as ‘science.’ This thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the administration and anti-energy special interest groups.” He said he was pleased the NPS director was having the comments rescinded, and hoped that, moving forward, the agency “will direct [its] efforts toward promoting the responsible use of our diverse lands and resources and away from misleading the American people.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1e0c4ada-f3b9-43e2-8d50-3c1fbd24652e,"Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35",2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force’s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.  The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.  The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades. “Today’s announcement is the final step before the first operational squadron of the U.S. Air Force’s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,” Hatch said. “The review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I’ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.”  “The Air Force’s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.  The F-35 has been referred to as the ‘backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation’ and today’s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,” said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee. ""I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,” said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Given the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.  The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9c44ba21-8c68-40ce-ba98-cb31e4a1df36,Hatch On Treasury IG Report On Obamacare Tax Credit Fraud,2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement today after the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a report that found that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has an inadequate system in place for preventing fraudulent Affordable Care Act premium subsidy payments from occurring and that people’s personal information would be at risk: “The ObamaCare premium subsidies are a fraudsters dream come true.   As TIGTA found today, the very nature of these credits – pay first, verify a person’s income later - will lead to potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of improper payments and could put millions of American’s personal information at risk.  While the IRS needs to do more to ensure more safeguards are put in place, the fact is that the problems with these tax credits are deeply rooted in the law itself.  I fear the IRS will never be fully capable of ensuring that these refundable tax credits got to those who are truly eligible.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6cbaf8ae-ff6c-465a-881c-1a0dbd908b24,"Hatch, Bishop, Lee Applaud Air Force Announcement on F-35",2013-12-03,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, and U.S. Representative Rob Bishop applauded the U.S. Air Force’s official announcement that Hill Air Force Base will be the first operational squadron of the F-35 stealth fighter starting in 2015.  The Air Force issued its final record of decision this morning at the conclusion of a 30-day waiting period that followed the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement.  The decision signals the continuation of the enduring partnership between the Air Force and the state of Utah that has mutually benefited U.S. National Security and the Utah community for decades. “Today’s announcement is the final step before the first operation squadron of the U.S. Air Force’s next generation of aircraft comes to Utah,” Hatch said. “The review process for the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was extensive, and the world class facilities and wonderful personnel at Hill Air Force and throughout our state make this the right choice for our state and our country. I’ve been proud to stand with the Utah congressional delegation and state leaders to continue pushing for this opportunity for Utah and our country, and I look forward to seeing the F-35 at Hill soon.” “The Air Force’s final record of decision is a clear vote of confidence in the future of Hill Air Force Base.  The F-35 has been referred to as the ‘backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation’ and today’s announcement confirms that Hill Air Force Base, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the Utah Test and Training Range remain the preeminent training grounds for air combat technologies. The unique capabilities of the support systems at Hill AFB, comprised of active duty and reserve military personnel as well as civilian defense workers, are second to none. This decision is very good news for Utah and I look forward to the arrival of the new squadrons,” said Congressman Bishop, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee. ""I am pleased to hear the announcement by the Air Force today to base the first operational squadrons of the F-35A in Utah,” said Sen. Lee, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Given the outstanding facilities at Hill AFB, the proximity to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex and the Utah Test and Training Range, and the incredible support that the Air Force enjoys from the Northern Utah community, this decision is a logical choice.  The Air Force has a unique relationship with the state of Utah that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the country, and I am excited to see that this relationship will continue to grow well into the future.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003639/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363141,IN THE NEWS: Park Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing,2013-12-02,2013,2013-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"In Case You Missed It…   “I have requested that the comments be withdrawn from the record,” Mr. Jarvis [NPS Director] said in the letter, dated earlier this month, in which he said nobody “from management” at the agency or at the White House Office of Management and Budget ever reviewed the document before it was submitted. National Journal: Park Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing    Park Service pulls objection to fracking; used op-ed instead of scientific evidence By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times November 26, 2013 The National Park Service has officially withdrawn a controversial document objecting to fracking, scrubbing the record and acknowledging that it broke its own rules on sticking to strict science in its zeal to pressure a fellow federal agency. The embarrassing admission, which came from Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis in a letter to Rep. Rob Bishop, said the comments never should have been submitted, went out without his review, and shouldn’t have cited a New York Times op-ed as scientific evidence. “I have requested that the comments be withdrawn from the record,” Mr. Jarvis said in the letter, dated earlier this month, in which he said nobody “from management” at the agency or at the White House Office of Management and Budget ever reviewed the document before it was submitted. Mr. Jarvis didn’t acknowledge that the science his agency relied upon was bad, but Mr. Bishop said withdrawing the document is a tacit admission that the Park Service was “misleading” Americans. “It concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as ‘science,’” the Utah Republican said. “This thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the administration and anti-energy special interest groups.” …continued here   Park Service Director Pulls Back Criticism of Hydraulic Fracturing By Clare Foran, National Journal November 27, 2013   The National Park Service is withdrawing public comments submitted in response to a draft proposal of regulations for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, proposed by the Bureau of Land Management following conservative attacks that the comments, which criticized the drilling technique as a possible health and environmental hazard, were unfounded, according to The Hill. When NPS formally commented on the BLM's proposed fracking rule in August the agency cited an op-ed written by Cornell University Professor Anthony Ingraffea, which raised the possibility that fracking is a contributor to global warming because it releases methane gas. This sparked pushback from oil and gas industry groups and conservative lawmakers who charged that the op-ed was speculative rather than scientific. In September, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, wrote to Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis calling the comments inconsistent with the agency's scientific-integrity policy and asking the director to defend the response. In mid-November, Jarvis wrote to Bishop with notice that the park service is formally withdrawing its previous comments on the rule. Jarvis claims, in the letter, that the agency did not intended to submit the comments and that they were not properly vetted internally. Bishop responded to the news with an attack on the administration… continued here   Additional stories: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CITES ANTI-FOSSIL FUELS NYT OP-ED AS ‘SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE’ (Daily Caller)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221014011/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363005,National Park Service Admits Comments About Hydraulic Fracturing are Wrong,2013-11-26,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— Congressman Rob Bishop, Chairman of the Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today received a letter from National Park Service (NPS) Director Jon Jarvis admitting that comments recently issued by the NPS to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about hydraulic fracturing are wrong. Director Jarvis conceded that information used to support the National Park Service’s positions on hydraulic fracturing, which they obtained from a New York Times opinion piece, was inappropriate and that the NPS will withdraw its comments. In a letter sent to Director Jarvis on September 06, 2013, Bishop noted that the NPS’s comments to the BLM were inconsistent with the policy on Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities.  Bishop also raised several other concerns in the letter that were addressed by Director Jarvis in his response letter. “It concerns me that the National Park Service attempted to pass off unsubstantiated information as ‘science’. This thinly veiled attempt to vilify energy production and hydraulic fracturing on our public lands illustrates a shared agenda between the Administration and anti-energy special interest groups.  I’m pleased that Director Jarvis will rescind the comments and hope that, moving forward, the NPS will direct their efforts toward promoting the responsible use of our diverse lands and resources and away from misleading the American people,” said Congressman Bishop.   Sept. 06, 2013 letter from Bishop to Dir. Jarvis                           November letter from Dir Jarvis to Bishop",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cf3b6392-4fc3-4735-82dc-f496f51d8f0b,Hatch Statement on Supreme Court Taking up Hobby Lobby Case on Religious Freedom,2013-11-26,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius case. Hobby Lobby Stores, a Christian-owned chain of retail stores, sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), arguing that the HHS rule mandating that women’s preventative services be covered by all health insurance plans – as a requirement of the President’s health law – is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Hatch was an author of RFRA, and in February led a group of Members of Congress in filing an amicus brief in support of Hobby Lobby when the case was before U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (that brief can be found here). “Last week marked the 20th anniversary of Religious Freedom Restoration Act becoming law, and over the last 20 years the law has stood for the principle that religious freedom is more important that any particular political priority,” Hatch said. “I’ve long argued that Obamacare violated the religious liberty protections Americans hold dear, regardless of political party. The simple fact is that one of our country’s founding principles was religious freedom for all, and I hope the justices on the court understand that this case will determine how important religious freedom is in American today and whether our country still stands for that guiding principle.” Under the Obamacare contraceptive mandate, employers who fail to provide this coverage must pay $100 per day per employee, which Hobby Lobby argued would cost the company approximately $1.3 million per day (about $475 million per year). One of the issues the Supreme Court will decide is whether this penalty amounts to a “substantial burden” under RFRA. The 10th Circuit ruled 5-3 in favor of Hobby Lobby that for-profit companies can be “persons” exercising religion within the meaning of RFRA and that the choice of violating religious belief or paying heavy fines is a substantial burden. The case will be decided by the Supreme Court in the current term goes through the end of June 2014.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ec9413b7-efd5-43bc-aaee-b9fd3c57f2b4,Hatch on Proposed 501(c)(4) Rule Change,2013-11-26,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Nov 26 2013 Utah Senator Says, “Given the IRS' recent track record, I pledge to thoroughly oversee this process to ensure politics aren't brought to bear.” U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement today after the U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced proposed new rules governing 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations:   ""There is much in these proposed rules to scrutinize. Any change should be carefully considered in a fair, equitable and non-partisan manner. Given the IRS' recent track record, I pledge to thoroughly oversee this process to ensure politics aren't brought to bear. However, I find it unfortunate that the Administration decided to move ahead with these new rules before the Finance Committee could conclude its bipartisan investigation into the targeting of those applying for tax-exempt status.  Waiting would have been wiser and would have offered some critical guidance that would have benefited this process. Furthermore, the uptick in applications over recent years was not just isolated to 501(c)(4)s, but to union tax-exempt 501(c)(5) organizations as well. I hope the Administration understands that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and looks at these union groups moving forward.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=9a621835-580e-4749-95ef-1ceee3119c39,December 2013 - Mobile Office Schedule,2013-11-26,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Tuesday 3 December 2013 – Davis County Mobile Office Visit to West Bountiful When: Tuesday 3 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM – Noon Where: West Bountiful @ West Bountiful City Hall, 550 North 800 West, West Bountiful, UT 84087 (Small Conference Room) Mobile Office Visit to Syracuse When: Tuesday 3 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Where: Syracuse, Utah @ Syracuse City Hall, 1979 West 1900 South, Syracuse, UT 84075 (TBD Room in City Hall) Wednesday 4 December 2013 – Davis County Mobile Office Visit to Woods Cross When: Wednesday 4 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM – Noon Where: Woods Cross, Utah @ Woods Cross City Hall, 1555 South 800 West,  Woods Cross, UT 84087 (Multi-Purpose Room – enter through East glass doors) Mobile Office Visit to Clearfield When: Wednesday 4 December 2013 @ 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM Where: Clearfield, Utah @ Clearfield Municipal Building, 55 South State Street, Clearfield, UT 84015 (Multi-Purpose Room – 2nd Floor) Friday 6 December 2013 – Salt Lake County Mobile Office Visit to Cottonwood Heights When: Friday 6 December 2013 @ 10:30 AM – Noon Where: Cottonwood Heights, Utah @ Whitmore Library, 2197 E. Ft Union Blvd,  Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121 (Meeting Room) Mobile Office Visit to MIllcreek When: Friday 6 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Where: Millcreek, Utah @ Millcreek Community Library, 2250 E. Evergreen Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 (Room C) Monday 9 December 2013 – Wasatch County What: Mobile Office Visit to Heber City When: Monday 9 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Where: Heber City, Utah @ Heber City Office, 75 N Main, Heber City, UT 84032 (Council Chamber) Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd How: POC: Michelle Kellogg, 435-654-0757 (Confirmed) Tuesday 10 December 2013 – Morgan County What: Mobile Office Visit to Morgan City When: Tuesday 10 December 2013 @ 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM Where: Morgan, Utah @ Morgan City Building, 90 West Young Street, Morgan, UT 84050 (Special Collections Room) Who: Robert Axson How: POC: Julie Bloxham, 801-829-3461 ext.1 (Confirmed) Tuesday 10 December 2013 – Tooele County What: Mobile Office Visit to Grantsville When: Tuesday 10 December 2013 @ 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM Where: Grantsville, Utah @ Grantsville Public Library, 42 N Bowery Street, Grantsville, UT 84029 (Special Collections Room) Who: Larry Shepherd How: POC: Linamarie Johnson, 435-884-1670 (Confirmed) Wednesday 11 December 2013 – Salt Lake County What: Mobile Office Visit to Murray City When: Wednesday 11 December 2013 @ 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM Where: Murray, Utah @ Murray City Heritage Center, 10 East 6150 South, Murray, UT 84107 Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd How: POC: Suzzane Gregory, 801-264-2635; Rondi Knowlton, 801-264-2602 (Confirmed) What: Mobile Office Visit to Sandy City When: Wednesday 11 December 2013 @ 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Where: Sandy, Utah @ Sandy City Hall, 1000 Centennial Parkway,  Sandy, UT 84070 (East Conference Room, 3rd Floor) Who: Robert Axson, Larry Shepherd How: POC: Dave Goldhart, 801-568-7249; Sherry McConkey, 801-568-7109 (Confirmed) Thursday 12 December 2013 – Box Elder County What: Mobile Office Visit to Willard When: Friday 12 December 2013 @ 10:00 AM – Noon Where: Willard, Utah @ City Hall, 80 W 50 S,  Willard, UT 84340 Who: Robert Axson How: POC:Debbie Barker 435-734-9881 (Confirmed)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-goodlatte-demand-more-information-dhs-libya-policy,"Chaffetz, Goodlatte Demand More Information from DHS on Libya Policy",2013-11-25,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/PARCAct,Stewart’s PARC Act Discussed in House Committee Hearing,2013-11-21,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Contact: Allison.Barker@mail.house.gov Washington, D.C. – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing discussing the PARC Act. The Provide Access and Retain Continuity Act, introduced last month by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), would enable states to continue operating National Parks and other federal facilities in the event of a future government shut down, if the states so choose. “It is my hope in proposing this legislation that it will protect the hard working citizens of this nation from the uncertainties of politics,” Stewart said. “ To offer Governors and state governments the ability to develop contingency plans with the Department of the Interior before future government shutdowns take place.  It is not just good economic policy, it is humane policy.” Utah’s Lt. Governor, Spencer Cox, testified before the committee saying that the effects of the national park closures were immediate and dramatic during the shutdown of the federal government. Cox noted that national parks and monuments, which add approximately $100 million per month to Utah’s economy, should continue to operate during any future government shutdowns. “[In October], the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior were able to quickly negotiate an agreement in which the state would upfront the money to the National Park Service in order to operate Utah’s national parks and monuments until federal budget crisis was resolved,” Cox said. Cox believes the PARC Act would help ensure continuity of operations. During the hearing, the committee also discussed, H.R. 3286, a bill that would reimburse states like Utah for paying to operate National Parks during the October government shutdown. “The important principle is that when states agree to help in a time of need, they should be fully compensated for this assistance in a timely fashion,” Cox said. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, supports the PARC act and said that Congress should reevaluate how we go about managing federal land. “States have proved that they are better equipped with regards to land and resource management,” Bishop said. “The notion that the federal government is the only entity that can oversee our resources is asinine and is regularly debunked.” Read Stewart’s Committee Statement about the PARC Act, below: “Thank you Chairman Bishop.  I am pleased to appear before your sub-committee to introduce H.R. 3311, the “Provide Access and Retain Continuity Act” or the PARC Act.  Thank you for considering this legislation here.” “When the Federal Government shut down in October of this year it seemed as if the Administration used all the lessons from their years spent in Chicagoland politics to do what they could to make the shutdown felt by the nation in the most painful way.  In the shutdown of 1995 and ‘96 agreements were eventually worked out between the Interior Department and the State of Arizona that allowed the State to take over funding of some of the operations of the Grand Canyon National Park.  Yet in 2013 it took two weeks before any such agreement was reached, despite the Arizona precedent from the ‘95/’96 shutdown.” “In my State of Utah it is estimated that Utah tourism suffered $30 million in losses due to the federal shutdown.  Tourism provides roughly 40 percent of the employment in Southern Utah where businesses and communities were hard hit in the government shutdown.  In Utah there are 5 national parks, 7 national monuments, 2 national recreation areas and 6 national forests; 70 percent of the land in my State is owned by the federal government.  Across the nation the federal government owns 30 percent of the land.  In the West, the State of Nevada is 84 percent owned by the federal government; in Idaho, Alaska and Oregon it owns more than 50 percent; in California, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico over 40 percent.  All this to say that if an Administration wants to make a shutdown painfully felt, it is easy for them to do so.  In the West, where there is so much federal land, it is detrimental not only to tourism but to other industries such as mining, timber, transportation and cattle production.  In the Eastern States there is more private land ownership.  In the west it can severally harm or destroy hundreds of small businesses that rely on the public lands.  This is not a situation that we in the west welcome, to be completely honest we would like to control our lands the way so many of our Eastern friends are able to but that is not yet the case.”  “But whether you are from the West, the East, the North or South the recent federal shutdown with its closure of public lands constituted a loss of billions of dollars in business revenue around the nation.”    “ I have proposed the PARC Act to keep this kind of abuse from taking place, to allow states, territories and the District of Columbia to enter into agreements with the Department of the Interior to keep economically important federal facilities in operation during future government shutdowns.  These agreements would be in place and could not be altered as a result of the political vicissitudes at the moment of a future government shutdown.  These agreements would allow for the continued operation of the public lands and for an avenue by which, once the government has re-opened, the states can be remunerated for their expenditures on behalf of the federal government.”     “My intention in proposing this legislation is not partisan.  I understand the political knife cuts both ways.  My intention is to create a legal mechanism where Americans can be spared the economic trauma as a result of political partisanship.  It was not just National Parks in Utah or even the West that were closed and caused economic trauma.  There were facilities such as the Great Smokey Mountains National Park in North Carolina, the Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Acadia National Park in Maine, the District of Columbia, Liberty Island and Ellis Island in New York, Independence National Historical Park in Pennsylvania, just to name a few.  There was not any state in the Nation that was not affected by the federal shutdown.”  “It is my hope in proposing this legislation that it will protect the hard working citizens of this nation from the uncertainties of politics.  To offer Governors and state governments the ability to develop contingency plans with the Department of the Interior before future government shutdowns take place.  It is not just good economic policy it is humane policy and I ask for your support and encourage its passage. Thank you.”   For a video of the Rep. Stewart’s opening statement and questioning of the witnesses, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221003643/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362499,Bishop Holds Legislative Hearing to Examine State and Federal Management of National Parks and Other Public Lands,2013-11-21,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON– Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today held a legislative hearing to examine bills pertaining to state and federal management of national parks and other public lands. Utah’s Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox was among the guests testifying at the hearing today. “The common thread among the legislation we considered and of the testimony we heard today was that the centralized soviet-style management of our public lands and resources should be abandoned. It’s the ‘old’ way of doing things and we’re in an era where that simply no longer works. I’m not sure that it ever worked and we need to reevaluate how we go about managing federal land. States have proved that they are better equipped with regards to land and resource management. The notion that the federal government is the only entity that can oversee our resources is asinine and is regularly debunked. I am grateful to those who testified today about these important issues and was especially thankful for the testimony of Utah’s new Lieutenant Governor Cox,” said Congressman Bishop. The following bills were reviewed today by the subcommittee: Protecting States, Opening National Parks Act [H.R. 3286] introduced by Congressman Steve Daines (MT-At Large): To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use State funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. State-Run Federal Lands Act [H.R. 3294] introduced by Congressman Don Young (AK- At Large): To establish a streamlined process through which a State may claim authority over and responsibility for management of Federal lands located in the State without claiming ownership of the land, and for other purposes. Providing Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act [H.R. 3311] introduced by Congressman Chris Stewart (UT-02): To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow continued operation of facilities and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. River Paddling Protection Act [H.R. 3492] ​ introduced by Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (WY- At Large): To provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge, and for other purposes. [H.R. 915] introduced by Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III (MA-04): To authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=e2614e95-9e81-41d0-a8da-509a533132a2,Hatch On The Nuclear Option,2013-11-21,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for initiating the so-called “nuclear option” to change Senate rules. After Majority Leader Reid moved forward with using the nuclear option – which would end the right to filibuster by allowing each judicial nomination to only need a simple majority to be confirmed – Hatch issued the following statement: “Today we face a real crisis in the confirmation process, a crisis concocted by the Democrat majority to distract attention from the Obamacare disaster and, in the process, consolidate more power than any majority has had in more than 200 years. This crisis was created by a majority that wants to win at all cost, for whom the political ends justify any means whatsoever.” NOTE: Hatch has long opposed the filibustering of judges.  To read Hatch’s statement entered for the record today, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011205/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=362423,House Sends Senate a Bill to Improve Energy Leasing and Permit Process,2013-11-20,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON– The House of Representatives today passed legislation to improve the current leasing and permitting process for resource development on federal land. Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, has been a leading proponent of the - Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act [H.R. 1965] and lauded the House’s support for the measure. The average time for lease holders to obtain a state-issued permit to drill on approved  state land is 12-15 days.  According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the average time for lease holders to obtain a permit on federal land is 307 days. It currently takes 30% longer to develop resources on federal land than on state land. “It’s time for the Administration to take their stranglehold off of western states.  In states like Utah, federal land accounts for nearly 67% of the state. Federal land means no property tax revenue and no tax revenue means no funding for education and other essential community programs.  Revenue from recreation and conservation is not enough and I challenge anyone who says that it is. It’s unfair that children whose families cannot afford private school don’t have access to the same educational resources as states like New York and Connecticut. The only way western states can generate funding for education is to utilize the diverse resources found on federal land. There has to be a fair balance between recreation, conservation, and development. I support conservation where it makes sense and it’s time that the Administration support energy development where it also makes sense,” said Congressman Bishop.  Specifically, H.R. 1965 ·         Eliminates unnecessary delays regarding the leasing process for oil and natural gas projects on federal lands ·         Reforms the permitting process so that once a lease is in hand energy companies will be able to more easily complete the requirements necessary to begin development of the resources, ·         Seeks to set clearer rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=061f4c3f-5cd4-4482-b432-7a21e49089bf,"Hatch Introduces Legislation to Let States Regulate Hydraulic Fracking, Stop Duplicative Federal Regulations",2013-11-20,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced common-sense legislation to protect American jobs and domestic energy production from costly and duplicative regulation from Washington. The Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (S.1743) would ensure that oil and gas producing states are protected from fracking regulations from Washington if states are already regulating the practice. Duplicative regulations over American energy production will lead to higher energy costs and job losses in an already struggling economy. Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives today by a vote of 235 to 187. “Many states such as Utah are doing the responsible thing and listening to stakeholders and communities around where hydraulic fracturing is taking place and regulating this activity responsibly. The last thing we need is costly and duplicative regulation from Washington on top of what’s already in place in Utah,” Hatch said. “This bill does nothing to stop the federal government from implement fracking standards in states where none exist – it simply says that regulations from the federal government cannot trump state action already in place. This bill is an opportunity to stand up for American energy production and protect the jobs that come with it, and I hope the Senate will vote on this bill soon to stand up for American workers and lower energy costs.” Hatch’s bill is cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), and Jim Risch (R-Idaho).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f1bc08ef-8ae7-4de6-aa04-7d24d474766b,"Hatch, Lee Support Effort To Repay Utah For Reopening National Parks During Government Shutdown",2013-11-20,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Utah’s U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee are both supporting an effort to fully refund Utah and other states that reopened national parks in their states during the recent government shutdown. Several states entered into individual agreements with the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) allowing the state to pay for reopening parks closed during the shutdown, and Hatch and Lee have cosponsored an amendment introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to the National Defense Authorization Act that would fully repay states that came to this agreement with the NPS. “Refunding states for doing the work of the federal government just makes sense,” Hatch said. “I applauded state leaders last month for taking the strong step to front the operating costs for the national parks while the government was shut down, and the state and Utah taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed.” “It is crucial that the National Park Service and the State of Utah continue to be good partners, and refunding the State of Utah for their remarkable efforts certainly is in keeping with that partnership,” Lee stated. “We will continue to work with the delegations of Arizona and Utah to create a positive resolution to this issue.""  A copy of the Flake Amendment can be viewed here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/november-19-2013-weekly-congressional-update,"November 19, 2013 - Weekly Congressional Update",2013-11-19,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the work of the 113th Congress. I trust this finds you and your family well. Today marks the 150th annivesary of the Gettysburg Address, a two minute speech that has forever changed our nation. I am grateful for Abraham Lincoln and all he did for our country. Take a moment and read his address here. The Week Ahead: I’m happy to announce that this week, the House Natural Resources Committee will be holding a hearing discussing my PARC Act. This bill would ensure that in the event of a future government shut down, an agreement is in place to allow states to quickly continue funding and operating national parks and federal programs that are vital to their economies. There is no reason that hardworking American families and communities should be punished due to circumstances over which they have no control. We are excited to have Utah’s Lt. Governor, Spencer Cox, come to Washington to testify at this hearing on Utah’s behalf. For a PDF of the full text of the PARC Act, click here. Visit the House Majority Leader’s website for the most up-to-date information on the legislation the House is voting on. Last Week: To alleviate some of the negative impacts of the botched Obamacare rollout, including increased premiums and cancelled health insurance plans, the House passed the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013. This bill allows health insurances companies to continue offering cancelled health plans through 2014. If the implementation of Obamacare has impacted you or your family, please share your story with me by filling out this survey on my website. It’s important for me to share your stories with my colleagues here in Washington. I remain committed to market healthcare solutions that get the government out of the way, allowing the economy to grow and Americans to make their own choices about their healthcare. I also had the chance to question the EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, to advocate for clean air solutions that work for Utah. Watch the clip of me questioning Ms. McCarthy below. Stay Connected: For me to better represent you in Congress, I hope that you will stay connected to my office. Follow me onFacebook, where I regularly post updates and give you a forum to voice your opinion. Click here to see a full list of the legislation I am sponsoring or co-sponsoring.  You can also view many of my House floor speeches and interviews where I discuss the work of Congress on my youtube channel. As always, feel free to email me if you have any concerns our comments. Your Congressman,     Chris Stewart Utah's 2nd Congressional District",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=47507fe5-7faf-499e-9bfe-818b341752d5,"Hatch, Thune, Alexander Introduce Bill To Prevent Special Union Exemption From Obamacare Reinsurance Tax",2013-11-19,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Following media reports that the Obama administration is once again trying to find a way to exempt unions from ObamaCare’s numerous taxes and mandates, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Thune (R-S.D.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and eight of their Republican colleagues today introduced the Union Tax Fairness Act (S. 1724), a bill to prevent union health care plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans, from being exempted from the ObamaCare reinsurance tax.    “The Obama Administration can't just circumvent Congress whenever it wants to curry favor with its political allies,” said Hatch. “Since the overwhelming majority of self-administered health insurance plans are run by unions, let's call this what it is: a political payback by the Administration to its union friends for backing this disastrous law. But the fact is, the White House doesn’t have the authority to change the law on its own and, as this bill makes clear, any attempt at a Big Labor carveout from ObamaCare must be approved by Congress.”  “Unions should not be granted a special exemption from ObamaCare’s reinsurance tax just because the president fears further union backlash on his signature law,” said Thune. “These unions agreed to pay this tax when they endorsed ObamaCare, but now that they are finding out what the law means for them and their plans, they want out. Rather than granting special backroom deals to political allies, the administration should support fairness for all by permanently delaying the law for every American.” Alexander said, “The Obama Administration should not reward its labor union friends and allies who helped pass the health care law by giving them a carveout from the law’s worst provisions. This hefty reinsurance fee is one of the many job-killing taxes that helped pay for the passage of the law—the administration should be embarrassed that it would consider exempting their union cronies without providing similar relief to our nation’s employers and faith-based and charitable organizations.”  The ObamaCare reinsurance tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and requires all self-insured plans to pay a tax for each person covered under a health plan. The tax was designed to provide funds to health care plans in the ObamaCare exchanges to help absorb the cost of care for people with pre-existing conditions. Thune’s bill would prevent the White House from providing a special fix for unions that would exempt them from the reinsurance tax.  In addition to Hatch, Thune, and Alexander and Hatch, the bill is co-sponsored by Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).   Last week, Hatch, Thune, and Alexander also led 18 of their Republican Senate colleagues in sending a letter that urged the Obama administration not to move forward with a proposed regulation that would exempt unions from the reinsurance tax.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221014014/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361833,Bureau of Land Management Cancels Oil and Gas Leases in Utah,2013-11-18,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON– Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) today responded to the Bureau of Land Management’s announcement that it will defer an additional 99,960 acres of land in Southern Utah from its quarterly oil and gas lease sale. This latest deferment brings the total number of acres withdrawn from the lease sale to over 800,000. The BLM’s Price and Vernal Field Offices will instead offer a mere 44,021 acres for oil and gas leases, a mere 5% of what could have been offered. “It’s silly of the BLM to think that it can pass this arbitrary decision off as anything other than what it really is, which is an appeasement of special interest groups that are opposed to all resource development in this area. Their motives are thinly veiled. It is no coincidence that the areas withdrawn from the lease sale are located within the boundaries of a proposal introduced by New Jersey Congressman Rush Holt (NJ-12) that seeks to lock up more than nine million acres as new wilderness.  The irony of the situation is that the deferred lease areas are within, or adjacent to, existing federal and state oil and gas leases, which currently coexist in harmony with outdoor recreation.  By succumbing to fear mongering from special interest groups, the BLM is further demonstrating the need for locally-driven solutions that support balanced use of the public lands.  Revenue from recreation is important to the state of Utah and helps support some communities, but it alone won’t pay the bills. We absolutely must have a balanced land-use portfolio that includes resource development and conservation for recreation.  I remain committed to working with all interested parties to build consensus over land-use policies, thereby giving communities and land users the certainty they need and deserve,” said Congressman Bishop.    ""Too often, opponents of high-paying energy jobs argue that we can't have both energy development and recreation. This is a false choice. We can have both, and rural Utah desperately needs more high-paying jobs that the energy industry provides. Nearly three times as much land in Emery County is protected from development for every acre that is leased for oil and gas. We need to strike a better balance,"" said Congressman Jason Chaffetz. Click here to view map of previous and current lease offerings. Purple areas indicate parcels that the BLM will offer on November 19th. Areas in blue indicate the parcels withdrawn from lease sale.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=305fd9e1-44e1-4985-b424-bcbff52e1776,"Lee, Hatch Respond to Administration's Last-Minute Delay of Nearly 100,000 Acres in Utah For Energy Leasing",2013-11-18,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch responded to the announcement by the Bureau of Land Management that it will be deferring nearly 100,000 acres from the proposed oil and gas lease auction on Tuesday, November 19. The BLM announcement that it will reduce the land available at auction by nearly 70% comes just days before sale was scheduled; once again proving the administration's repeated promises of transparency and open communication are empty.  “At a time when the State of Utah, local counties, and Utah's federal delegation are participating in a large scale initiative to resolve many long-standing public land issues, this last-minute bait and switch only reinforces the widespread belief that, under this Administration, BLM is becoming a vehicle for policies created by radical environmentalists,” said Senator Lee.  “This bureaucratic maneuvering does more than hurt the companies that were ready, willing, and able to participate in Tuesday's auction.  It discourages companies from participating in future auctions, and perhaps ever investing in states that are dominated by federal land ownership. The cumulative impact of this and other similar actions serves to drive investment away from the families and communities that live near lands managed by the federal government. In order to thrive, these communities need a good faith partner in the BLM.” “This misguided announcement by the Bureau of Land Management to defer the leasing of 100,000 acres for energy production because of pressure from environmental elites ironically comes on the heels of news last month that the United States produced more oil than it imported,” said Hatch. “The fact that our nation is a global leader in energy production seems lost on the President and his Administration who’s doing everything to stop that from happening. This hurts American jobs and American energy independence and must stop.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=831a3eab-3f1b-462f-899f-cd586d67dd16,Leahy & Lee Introduce Legislation To Protect Innovators Against Patent Lawsuit Abuse,2013-11-18,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Committee member Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined together Monday to introduce legislation to protect businesses and innovators who are being improperly targeted by patent trolls. The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 would increase transparency in patent ownership, protect customers who are sued for patent infringement by allowing the case against them to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates the suit, target the widespread sending of frivolous demand letters, and improve resources for small businesses that are targeted in patent infringement suits, among other provisions.  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is an original cosponsor of the bill.   “America’s patent system is the envy of the world, but unfortunately some bad actors are misusing the system to sue unsuspecting consumers or extort monetary settlements by making misleading demands,” Leahy said.  “When small businesses in Vermont and across the country are threatened with lawsuits for offering wi-fi to their customers or using document scanners in their offices, we can all agree the system is not being used as intended.  The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today takes important steps to protect those who are targeted by patent trolls while preserving what has made America’s patent system great.”   Leahy added: “I thank Senator Lee and Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this effort and I applaud Chairman Goodlatte and members from both parties who are working to address this problem. I look forward to working through the Committee process with other Senatorsto develop effective legislation that will help innovators and inventors succeed.”   “Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that our system of intellectual property ‘promote[s] the progress of science and the useful arts.’ Our patent system must protect legitimate property rights and encourage innovation,” Lee said.  “Recently, we have seen increased abuse of the patent system in a way that actually discourages innovation and growth of the economy.  This legislation, together with other proposals introduced by members of the Judiciary Committee, will restore the proper balance to the patent system.”   Leahy and Lee previously announced their intent to introduce legislation on this issue and their collaboration with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in an op-ed published earlier this year.  Leahy has also pressed the Administration to assist in addressing the problem of patent trolls, urging the Federal Trade Commission in June to more aggressively pursue enforcement actions against patent trolls using its consumer protection authority.   An outline of the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 can be found here, and text of thelegislation can be found online.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-cancels-oil-and-gas-leases-utah,Bureau of Land Management Cancels Oil and Gas Leases in Utah,2013-11-15,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221004958/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361682,Bishop Supports Bill Allowing Americans to Keep Their Current Healthcare Coverage,2013-11-15,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON– Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013 to address the fallacy told by President Barack Obama that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would allow the American people to retain their health insurance plan if they chose to do so.  The legislation [H.R. 3350] will allow health insurance issuers to continue offering plans in 2014 that don’t necessarily meet the Obamacare requirements, ensuring that Americans who like their plans can keep their plans as the President promised. On August 15, 2009, President Barack Obama stated: I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. (source: whitehouse.gov) Despite assurances from President Obama and other Obamacare backers that “you can keep your health care plan,” more than three and a half million Americans on the  individual insurance market have received notices that their health insurance plans are being cancelled and that they in fact will not be able to retain their current coverage. “President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid sold the American people a bill of goods.  They lied and now they expect us to trust them to fix it. The roll out of this law has been so fraught with error, it could be fodder for a tragic comedy theater production,” said Congressman Bishop. President Obama has signed seven bills into law that have repealed portions of Obamacare since it was first passed in 2010.  Additionally, the President has unilaterally issued administrative fixes to the law. “It is unlikely that Harry Reid will ever agree to repeal this disastrous law, but a full repeal is the best solution.  In the meantime, the House will continue to roll back some of the most egregious components of the bill. Changes to existing law should be the result of an open and legal constitutional process and not the President’s capitulation to current political trends.   The President’s decision to change laws whenever he wants because of political pressure illustrates his lack of regard for the rights and freedom of the American people,” Bishop added.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221134054/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-johnson-send-letter-dhs-oig-regarding-usss-culture-report,"Chaffetz, Johnson Send Letter To DHS OIG Regarding USSS Culture Report",2013-11-15,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-3) and Sen. Ron Johnson (WI) released the following statement regarding a letter recently sent to the Department of Homeland Security Deputy Inspector General Edwards: Eighteen months ago the DHS OIG promised Congress it would conduct an independent review of the culture of the United States Secret Service (USSS). Just this week, we learned that one of the supervisors involved in investigating the sexual misconduct in Cartagena, Colombia last year has himself been disciplined for sexual misconduct. This type of misconduct threatens the security of the president of the United States. Our ongoing investigation has found that the DHS OIG has been inappropriately influenced to soften language in independent reports. We want to know when this report will be released and where it has been for the past year and a half. Senator Johnson made the following comments: “Yesterday we learned that two senior level United States Secret Service (USSS) agents assigned to the president’s detail were recently disciplined for sexual misconduct. According to whistleblowers, one of these men helped lead the USSS internal investigation of the sexual misconduct in Cartagena in April of last year. This is like the fox guarding the hen house. “Charles Edwards, DHS Deputy Inspector General, promised an independent review of the USSS culture 18 months ago. Since that time, my subcommittee has received information regarding similar sexual misconduct by USSS personnel in 17 countries.  This type of behavior jeopardizes the security of the president of the United States and makes U.S. government personnel susceptible to coercion and blackmail. We can’t wait another 18 months for answers.” Representative Chaffetz commented: “Reported misconduct of senior-level US Secret Service agents is dangerous, irresponsible, unprofessional, and completely inappropriate. These agents are supposed to be the best of the best. We expect more from them. That those tasked to protect the President would jeopardize his security through such mindless behavior is totally unacceptable. Recent events shine a light on the inappropriate behavior permeating the culture of the USSS that must not be tolerated. A serious and robust investigation must include cooperation from the Administration in order to get to the root of the problem and implement proper reforms.” A copy of the letter can be viewed here. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=6cac954c-f345-4e1f-b8b9-b0ac71547db1,"Lee, Hatch Respond to Administration’s Last-Minute Delay of Nearly 100,000 Acres in Utah for Energy Leasing",2013-11-15,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Today, Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch responded to the announcement by the Bureau of Land Management that it will be deferring nearly 100,000 acres from the proposed oil and gas lease auction on Tuesday, November 19. The BLM announcement that it will reduce the land available at auction by nearly 70% comes just days before sale was scheduled; once again proving the administration's repeated promises of transparency and open communication are empty. “At a time when the State of Utah, local counties, and Utah's federal delegation are participating in a large scale initiative to resolve many long-standing public land issues, this last-minute bait and switch only reinforces the widespread belief that, under this Administration, BLM is becoming a vehicle for policies created by radical environmentalists,” said Senator Lee.  “This bureaucratic maneuvering does more than hurt the companies that were ready, willing, and able to participate in Tuesday's auction.  It discourages companies from participating in future auctions, and perhaps ever investing in states that are dominated by federal land ownership. The cumulative impact of this and other similar actions serves to drive investment away from the families and communities that live near lands managed by the federal government. In order to thrive, these communities need a good faith partner in the BLM.” “This misguided announcement by the Bureau of Land Management to defer the leasing of 100,000 acres for energy production because of pressure from environmental elites ironically comes on the heels of news last month that the United States produced more oil than it imported,” said Hatch. “The fact that our nation is a global leader in energy production seems lost on the President and his Administration who’s doing everything to stop that from happening. This hurts American jobs and American energy independence and must stop.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011208/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361531,Speaker Boehner Appoints Negotiators to Water Resources Reform Conference Committee,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Speaker Boehner Appoints Negotiators to Water Resources Reform Conference Committee Bishop Named Natural Resources Conferee f t # e Washington, Nov 14, 2013 WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today named the following House Republican negotiators to serve on the House-Senate Conference Committee charged with resolving differences over the Water Resources Reform & Development Act (WRRDA). “Reforming the way our country develops and maintains vital ports and waterways will strengthen our economy and help create new jobs,” said Speaker Boehner. “The vote for the House bill was nearly unanimous. It cuts red tape, increases accountability, and protects taxpayers – all without earmarks.I’m confident our negotiators will come to a quick resolution that includes these reforms – one that both the House and Senate can pass and the president can sign.” NOTE: Here are the House Republicans the Speaker is naming to serve on the House-Senate conference committee: Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Conferees: Natural Resources Committee Conferees:",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1de2c132-efa8-41fe-b9ae-c973575402ca,GOP Senators to Administration: No Union Carveouts from Obamacare,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Thune (R-S.D.) and 18 of their Republican colleagues today urged the Obama administration against moving forward with a proposed regulation that would exempt unions from an Obamacare fee that applies equally to employers, charities, and faith-based organizations.  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a regulation on October 30, 2013, stating that the agency intends to propose further rulemaking which would aim to exempt certain Taft-Hartley union health plans from the reinsurance fee mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  In a letter to Sylvia Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, the senators write: “The [reinsurance] fee is undeniably expensive for unions, employers, charities and faith-based organizations whose health plans are not available in the new health insurance exchanges and will not see any of those dollars returned to them. For the year 2014, the fee is $63 per covered life—a multi-million dollar levy for larger organizations.”  They continue: “The regulation makes no justification as to why union members should be exempted from this fee while other similarly situated organizations (and, ultimately, their beneficiaries) must continue to pay it.  “It has been widely reported that labor unions recently sought an exemption from the reinsurance fee through Congress but were rightly rebuffed. To think that the Obama Administration would consider such an action that benefits one group over another can only be characterized as cronyism at its worst. “Self-insured health insurance plans—whether or not they also self-administer—are all facing the same dilemma of being forced to subsidize insurance companies participating in the new exchange. The regulatory process is meant to implement the law as written, not as the Administration wishes it were. If the law will unfairly hurt certain groups, it should be repealed or amended through Congress. Click here to see the letter. Alexander is the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, Hatch is the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Thune is the senior Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Together, those committees have key oversight roles concerning our nation’s health care system. The letter was also signed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Tim Scott (R-S.C.).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=4fb99a25-6482-48dc-ace5-5587228689e9,Hatch Statement on Judiciary Committee Approval of Judge Carolyn McHugh for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, today applauded the Judiciary Committee’s unanimous approval of Utah Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Judge McHugh’s nomination now must be voted on by the full Senate before she can be sworn in to replace 10th Circuit Judge Michael Murphy, who took senior status on 12/31/12. “Judge McHugh is an extremely well-respected jurist and I know she will do an outstanding job in this new role,” Hatch said. “Her varied legal experience to date has given her a great foundation for serving on the federal court, and I hope the Senate will act quickly so Judge McHugh can begin her service on the 10th Circuit.” NOTE: Hatch introduced Judge McHugh at her confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee in September. To read his remarks introducing Judge McHugh then, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a3150847-93b7-4cd2-8e12-034161a4aff6,"Hatch, Tester to FCC: Protect Television Reception Across Rural America",2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prepares for the sell-off of television broadcast airwaves nationwide, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are making sure rural, over-the-air TV signals remain strong. The FCC’s upcoming voluntary broadcast “spectrum” auction will re-package the frequencies used by cell phones companies and television broadcasters to expand mobile broadband services and develop better public safety networks.  But if the re-packing of the nation’s airwaves is not done carefully, rural Americans who rely on relay stations – known as translators – and low-power stations to send broadcast signals to their homes could face reception problems. Hatch and Tester, both supporters of the auction, want FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to ensure that the sale of television airwaves will not worsen broadcast quality for millions of rural viewers who depend upon translators and smaller stations for local news and public safety information. “Across our vast prairies and mountain ranges, our constituents rely on over-the-air television to access vital news programming, weather updates, emergency announcements and educational and entertainment content,” Tester, Hatch and a group of Senators told Wheeler in a letter.  “While we recognize that the repacking process will inevitably lead to changes for translators and low-power television stations, we urge the FCC to ensure that access to quality over-the-air television is preserved.” Tester and Hatch are joined by Max Baucus (D-Mont.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and Mark Udall (D-Colo.). The letter Hatch and Tester led to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is available HERE.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=b20a664b-fd1c-4d3d-9be4-45af67229600,Hatch Says President's So-Called Obamacare Plan Will Be Another Broken Promise,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today issued the following statement after the President announced a proposal to grandfather insurance plans: “The President can’t fix a broken promise by making more empty promises today that will be broken tomorrow. The difference this time is that he’s hoping to shift the blame to states and insurance companies.  That’s not the answer the American people deserve. Doubling-down on the same policy that’s responsible for more than four million Americans losing their health plans is irresponsible and does nothing to solve the problem.  Americans should be able to keep the insurance – and the doctors and hospitals – of their choosing, as the President promised.  Dressing up the same failed policy and pushing it past the 2014 elections is cynical Washington politics at its worst.  The President needs to get in the game and work with Congress to replace this law that has become the source of so many problems for too many Americans. The status quo is simply not an option.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c9cbebe4-6217-4d9d-96a3-646bd93b7086,Hatch Shares Stories From Utahns on Cost & Consequences of Obamacare,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined Senate Republicans on the Senate floor today and shared stories from Utahns on the costs and consequences of the President’s health law. (Click the image above to watch Hatch’s remarks) Hatch delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor: Mr. President, I have received letters from my constituents all over Utah who are scared, angry, and confused about the changes they’re already facing under ObamaCare. I’ve heard countless stories from Utahns that are losing their coverage and will be forced into more expensive plans thanks to the so-called Affordable Care Act. One such story came from Kathy in Salt Lake City.  I spoke briefly about Kathy here on the floor a couple weeks ago. Kathy wrote to tell me how she was notified by mail that her existing health care plan was no longer going to be offered.  Instead, she was presented with an ObamaCare-compliant policy that will increase her deductible from $3000 to $5000, increase her copays for doctor visits to 30 percent, and increase her copays for prescription drugs to as much as 50 percent. As a result of these changes, Kathy’s health care expenses will exceed her income. To quote Kathy, “the claim that only substandard policies were canceled is a lie – the plan I was on was a good policy.” She does not trust the new HealthCare.gov website and feels that there is not adequate security to protect her personal information. In her words, “I wouldn’t touch the exchange with a ten-foot pole.” She is not alone in feeling this way, which spells trouble for these new health care exchanges and for the President’s health law.  I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f8cfc117-f984-4034-b035-8284c7fc9222,"Hatch, Alexander Introduce Legislation to Strengthen Worker Rights",2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), current Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, introduced legislation today to significantly reform labor laws for the first time in more than 50 years to improve worker rights. The Employee Rights Act gives workers the freedom to choose to unionize or not and be free from intimidation or retribution for their choice, mandates a secret ballot in elections on whether to form a union, requires unions to be periodically recertified via a secret-ballot vote, prevents “quickie” elections, prevents employees’ dues and fees from being used for political activities without their consent, and takes other important steps to level the playing field for workers against powerful labor unions. The Employee Rights Act is cosponsored by 22 of Hatch and Alexander’s Senate colleagues. “This isn’t a Republican or a Democrat issue – this is a matter of fairness and basic worker rights,” Hatch said. “Employees should have the right to join a union or not, and they should be able to decide without being fearful of that decision. They should be able to cast a ballot in secret, just like Americans do at ballot boxes across the country.  If there is turnover in the workforce, there should be vote to determine if the union still has the support of current employees.  Workers also deserve a say in how their union spends their dues and whether to go on strike. This common-sense bill takes critical steps in giving individual workers the rights they deserve.” “The single biggest problem facing the American worker today is a persistently high unemployment rate, and yet union leaders insist on further weakening workers’ opportunities,” said Alexander. “This bill empowers employees by giving them a say in whether or not they want to join and pay dues to a union, ensuring the privacy of that decision and allowing employees to opt out of having all of their personal contact information and work schedule shared with union organizers.” In addition to Hatch and Alexander, the Employee Rights Act is supported by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Tom Coburn (R -Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Below is a summary of provisions in the Employee Rights Act as introduced by Hatch and Alexander: Secret Ballot Elections Guarantee employees the right to a secret ballot election when deciding whether to join a union.  Union Recertification Elections Require that all unionized workplaces with employee turnover exceeding 50 percent to hold secret ballot elections to determine whether a majority of employees still want to be represented by the union. Paycheck Protection Prevent unions from using employees’ dues and fees for purposes unrelated to their bargaining functions – including political contributions and expenditures – without an the employees’ written consent. Secret Ballot Strike Votes Give employees the right to a secret ballot vote before union leaders can order a strike. Prevent “Quickie” or “Snap” Elections Negate the recent regulatory effort at the NLRB to unfairly expedite union elections by preventing unions from obtaining employees’ private information and ensuring due process in determining issues such as the appropriate bargaining unit and eligibility of individuals.  Prevent Union Coercion Allow employees to collect lost wages, illegally collected union dues, and/or liquidated damages from a union that interferes with their rights under the NLRA, including the right to petition for decertification of the union. Impose a procedural penalty on unions that interfere with the filing of a decertification petition. Criminalize Union Threats Strengthen prohibitions on the use or threat of violence for achieving purposes related to unionization and collective bargaining. This would resolve the loopholes created by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Enmons, which effectively exempted unions from federal anti-racketeering statutes. Eliminates Needless Disparities Conform and make equal the definition of an “unfair labor practice” on the part of a union with that of an employer. Allow every employee in a represented bargaining unit – regardless of union membership status – to have the same rights as union members to vote on the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement or to engage in strike or work stoppage. Require unions to provide audited financial statements to agency fee payers.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=7fa3e54b-72f7-4348-ad6b-ca6ceeecff23,The Transportation Empowerment Act,2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The Transportation Empowerment Act The “Transportation Empowerment Act” opens up America’s transportation system to greater local control, better targeted projects, and a more efficient way to maintain and improve the nation’s infrastructure.  The law allows states to respond to the needs of their communities and develop systems that result in less traffic, shorter commutes, more affordable homes, and help families better manage the work-life balance.   How it Works Transfers almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period Lowers the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents from 18.4 cents over the same time period During the five-year phase out, states will receive block grants that come with vastly fewer federal strings attached What It Does Immediately lessens the bureaucratic burden on states to construct critical transportation projects Results in a faster administrative response to the transportation problems Americans face, such as traffic, commuting, and access Gives states greater flexibility in their tax structure Connects where people want to work with where they want to live Opens opportunities to develop new mass-transit solutions, innovate environmental protections, and improve the financing of projects Creates jobs and grows the economy",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=b7804c0b-f9bd-4106-a061-0360e67852ea,"Lee, Graves, Rubio Introduce Major Highway Funding Reform Bill",2013-11-14,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-14) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act, a bill to open up America’s transportation system to greater local control, better targeted projects, and a more efficient way to maintain and improve the nation’s infrastructure. The bill allows states to respond to the needs of their communities and develop systems that result in less traffic, shorter commutes, more affordable homes, and help families better manage the work-life balance. ""Under the Transportation Empowerment Act, Americans would no longer have to send significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached,” said Sen. Lee. ""Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects. Local communities should finally have the flexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want, for less money, without politicians and special interests from other parts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they should build. For the country as a whole, our plan would mean a better infrastructure system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism, and innovative environmental protection. And for working families, it could mean more access to quality, affordable homes, less time on the road – and making it home in time for dinner with the kids.” “People want to spend less time in traffic and more time enjoying life,” said Rep. Graves, who is introducing the TEA Act in the House for the second time. “Our bill will streamline the highway program, allowing more projects to be completed at a lower cost. This means commuters can move more easily between home and work, freeing up important family time and cutting out hours of frustration behind the wheel.” “We must empower states to develop the transportation systems they need and remove roadblocks created by Washington, which is why I have joined Senator Lee in introducing this legislation,” said Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). “Donor states like Florida should be getting a better return on our investment, and the Transportation Empowerment Act will do just that.” The House version sponsored by Rep. Graves currently has 19 cosponsors.     Legislation details: Transportation Empowerment Act How it Works Transfers almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period. Lowers the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents from 18.4 cents over the same time period. During the five-year phase out, states will receive block grants that come with vastly fewer federal strings attached. What It Does Immediately reduces the bureaucratic burden involved in the construction of critical transportation projects. Results in a faster administrative response to the transportation problems Americans face, such as traffic, commuting, and access. Gives states greater flexibility in their tax structure. Connects where people want to work with where they want to live. Opens opportunities to develop new mass-transit solutions, innovate environmental protections, and improve the financing of projects. Creates jobs and grows the economy. Why The Current System Hurts The Commute When the costs of federal red tape and Highway Trust Fund redistribution are taken into account, 37 states, including Georgia and Utah, have a rate of return below 100%.  For example, Georgia’s estimated buying power in Fiscal Year 2014 is anticipated to be approximately 84% based on the most recent Highway Trust Fund payment information available, costing Georgia taxpayers $185 million. For Fiscal Year 2014, $820 million was authorized nationwide for so-called “transportation alternatives” described by the Federal Highway Administration as “landscaping and scenic enhancement” and “recreational enhancement,” among others.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20131202211328/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-aims-fix-broken-border-patrol-pay-system,Chaffetz Aims to Fix Broken Border Patrol Pay System,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz introduced H.R. 3463, The Border Patrol Pay Reform Act of 2013. This bipartisan legislation aims to fix inadequacies in Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) – the overtime component within the Border Patrol pay system – by creating a consistent and reliable pay system. These reforms will also enhance border security and save taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years according to initial estimates.   “In addition to saving $125 million a year, we are looking to bring more consistency to those who risk their lives everyday protecting the border. This new pay scale is a long term solution that will iron out the kinks of the current system through old-fashioned planning and time management. These changes will both reduce opportunities to abuse the system and provide compensation for unanticipated emergencies such as capturing criminals,” said Chaffetz.  The Border Patrol pay system was established almost 40 years ago and is different from the system covering other federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or Secret Service. A recent report released by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) detailed the misuse of the AUO system by agents in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Situation Room. H.R. 3463 would address this problem by replacing AUO with three options: work 100 hours per pay period and receive a 25 percent differential, work 90 hours and receive a 12.5 percent differential, or work no overtime (80 hours per pay period). Additional unscheduled overtime will be treated as compensatory time off. Scheduled overtime will be paid. In total, CBP would save $7,000 per agent per year in lower overtime costs while gaining the ability to legally schedule Agents for shift changes. According to initial estimates, this will save approximately $125 million per year or roughly $1.25 billion over 10 years. The Border Patrol Pay Reform Act is strongly endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and Border Patrol Agents nationwide. Nearly identical legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John McCain (R-AZ). Additional cosponsors in the House include Reps. Candice Miller (R-MI), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Ron Barber (D-AZ), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=382e7f99-1406-4e22-b682-badb90c1eca0,"Hatch, Matheson, Bishop, Chaffetz, Stewart Push For Application Approvals To Export More Natural Gas",2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and U.S. Representatives Jim Matheson (UT-4), Rob Bishop (UT-1),  Jason Chaffetz (UT-3), and Chris Stewart (UT-2) signed onto a letter sent to Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz urging support for pending applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. Currently, there are only two LNG export terminals proposed for the West Coast, which limits the amount of LNG that can be exported from Utah and other Western states.  “Revenues to Rocky Mountain states, such as Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, depend significantly on the production of energy resources within their borders,” the lawmakers wrote. “The Department’s approvals of LNG exports from east coast and Gulf coast facilities will encourage future natural gas production in eastern and Gulf coast communities. We believe the Department should provide the people of the Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes the same opportunity.” In addition to Hatch, Matheson, Bishop, Chaffetz and Stewart, the letter was signed by seven other Members of Congress representing Western states. The full text of the letter is below: November 12, 2013 The Honorable Ernest MonizSecretaryU.S. Department of Energy1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Secretary Moniz: We write to express our support for Jordan Cove’s application to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to non-Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries. While we applaud the Department of Energy’s approval of applications to export LNG from facilities located along the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico, it is imperative that the Department quickly review and act on applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries from facilities on the west coast. West coast facilities are essential to ensuring that Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes have greater access to international markets and thus the opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits of LNG exports.  Revenues to Rocky Mountain states, such as Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, depend significantly on the production of energy resources within their borders. For example, in 2012, roughly 18 percent of the revenues to the State of Wyoming came from Federal mineral royalties and state severance taxes collected on natural gas production. Likewise, revenues to Indian tribes, such as the Ute Indian Tribe on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah, depend heavily on royalties and tribal severance taxes collected on natural gas production. The nation’s supply of natural gas, however, is projected to soon exceed domestic demand. Consequently, companies have cancelled natural gas projects which has resulted in or is expected to result in less revenue to state and tribal governments and the creation of fewer jobs in our communities. West coast LNG export facilities, such as Jordan Cove, would provide Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and Indian tribes, such as the Ute Indian Tribe, direct access to international markets.  Specifically, Jordan Cove would allow gas shipped on the Ruby pipeline to be exported to Asian markets. Access to international markets is critical to ensuring that companies have the incentive to produce natural gas in the future. The Department’s approvals of LNG exports from east coast and Gulf coast facilities will encourage future natural gas production in eastern and Gulf coast communities. We believe the Department should provide the people of the Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes the same opportunity. To that end, we ask that the Department expeditiously review and act on Jordan Cove’s application to export LNG to non-FTA countries.  Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=490afe84-b4a2-4cb8-a432-442a3cac835e,Hatch Statement on Obamacare Enrollment Numbers,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced only 106,000 individuals have selected a health insurance plan through the ObamaCare exchanges, as of November 2nd: “A far cry from the hundreds of thousands of Americans the Administration said would sign-up for ObamaCare by the end of the month, these numbers are a lot worse than advertised.  The reason is simple: the Administration is over inflating the numbers by including folks shopping for a plan – not just looking at who’s signed up.  At this pace, the Obama Administration will never be able to meet their enrollment goals.  In fact, in state after state, the number of people whose health insurance is being dropped because of ObamaCare’s insurance mandates and requirements far exceeds the numbers of those who are signing up.  In fact in Utah alone a mere 357 people signed up.  This isn’t what the American people were promised.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d78be4d9-04ca-4c80-a26e-360b9401e2a1,"Hatch, 74 Members of Congress Call on Obama Admin to Fully Delist the Gray Wolf",2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined with 74 other Members of Congress in sending a letter today to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe in support of the June 2013 proposed rule to nationally delist the Gray Wolf as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, and in opposition to a proposal to list the Mexican wolf as a separate, endangered sub-species.  This is the second letter that Hatch, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee Doc Hastings (WA-4), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large), and more than five dozen other bipartisan and bicameral Members of Congress and Senators to Director Ashe calling for the delisting of the gray wolf.  Despite issuing a proposed rule to delist the wolves five months ago, the Administration has yet to issue a final decision.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2009 and in the Great Lake States in 2011.  The current situation has created a confusing management and regulatory scheme that has left some states – including Washington, Oregon and Utah – in the unsustainable and random situation of having wolves listed on one side of a highway and delisted on the other.    “The statutory purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened.’  The gray wolf is currently found in 46 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of ‘least concern’ globally for risk of extinction by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group.  This is a clear indication that this species is not endangered or threatened with extinction.” wrote the Members in the letter. In the letter, Members also express opposition to the proposed provision to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered sub-species:  “Since wolves were first provided protections under the ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep and mule deer. This is why we believe it is critical that you reconsider your decision to list the Mexican wolf as a sub-species under ESA, which would have a severe impact on private landowners, including ranchers, in Arizona, New Mexico, and surrounding states. We believe that state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.”  Click here to read the full letter.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=7f0bdfce-22c7-4e84-aeef-435dc3368bf9,Bring Them In,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"It’s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.  Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on. It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it’s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us. And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line. Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility. A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program – which provides health insurance to the poor – produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade. We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up. We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography. All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech - America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it. First, let’s be clear about one thing.  The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, and the self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For more than two hundred years, the United States – through trial and error, through good times and bad – has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of the world. The United States has become so wealthy that it is easy to forget that, as Michael Novak once noted, most affluent Americans can actually remember when their own families were poor. Upward mobility has never been easy. It has always and everywhere required backbreaking work, personal discipline, and at least a little luck. But if upward mobility was not universal in America, it was the norm. From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty – we were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society. We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But really, they are networks of people and information and opportunity. What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone – regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on themselves or the government, but on each other. For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation. In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself is to look out for your neighbors.  Together, these twin networks of service-based success enabled millions of ordinary Americans to make our economy very wealthy and our society truly rich… long before Lyndon Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government authority. These human – and humane – networks empowered Americans, unlike any people on earth or in history, to protect not just themselves but each other from both material want and social isolation. Now, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other’s lives and meet common challenges.  As President Obama said in his second inaugural: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.” But by “together,” of course, he meant only “government.” This discredited mindset – which insists collective action can only mean state action - is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects social solidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communities for professional community organizers. It distrusts and denies the bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highest expression of our dignity. Look at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional – and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form. Free enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space - between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - where we live, and love, and flourish… where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life… where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it… together. In America, government did not invade or replace that space. Government protected and expanded it. That is how we proved to the world that freedom doesn’t mean “you’re on your own.” Freedom means “we’re all in this together.” The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation “of plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.” Organic communities formed within the free market and civil society’s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to. And that’s what America was all about. Since the dawn of time, rich and powerful men, and friends of the king, always had access to opportunity. What made America different is that here, everyone did, and government’s job was to make sure of it. This is an important point, for progressives to learn and conservatives to remember: the constitutionally limited but indispensable role that government played in America’s original war on poverty. That role was best expressed by a president who understood poverty better than most. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the “leading object” of American government was: “to elevate the condition of men - to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.” In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what government ought to do about it. As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity – a lack of access to those social and economic networks where human opportunities are created. Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor – they were poor mostly because they were isolated. And so, in America’s original war on poverty, government did not give the poor other people’s money. It gave them access to other people. In Lincoln’s era – even during a cataclysmic war that was itself a struggle for human freedom and opportunity – that meant dredging rivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods weren’t designed to make poverty more tolerable – but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at which knowledge could be developed and shared. Poor farmers and trappers in Lincoln’s Mid-West were no worse at their trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. They just didn’t enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and economic capital. In the same way, poor children today do not lack the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in our market economy and civil society. But they absolutely lack the same access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and those skills are acquired. Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It’s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out. Nineteen-sixty-four wasn’t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans’ access to our market economy and civil society and clear them. And if we’re looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, we’ve certainly come to the right place! Today, many of those obstructions are themselves government policies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged families can take toward social mobility and economic security. Today’s government-centric system penalizes marriage, which a mountain of evidence now shows is the single most empowering social and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducing benefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of these poverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent. Thus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophies community interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms and dads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old and young, native and immigrant. Meanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare to health care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosion of fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities. And so conservatives need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not only corrects – but transcends – existing policies. Anyone looking for ideas would do well to visit my home state of Utah, where a combination of smart, efficient government, a growing, prosperous economy, an active and faithful civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world, have made Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in the entire country. But first and foremost, we should at least pledge to do no more harm. There is no good reason the federal government should maintain 79 separate means-tested programs. There is no good reason why almost none of these programs feature the kind of work-requirements that helped transition millions of Americans into jobs after the 1996 reform. And there is no good reason federal policy should reward states for higher spending rather than improved results. And so one of our first priorities should be to simply get existing federal programs under control. And I am working with the Heritage Foundation and several colleagues on legislation to do just that. Second, just as we cannot spend our way out of poverty, we cannot really cut our way out, either. We need to fundamentally fix the system so that every dollar we do spend actually connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market and civil society.  One way to do this would be to block-grant Medicaid funds to the states, eliminating the federal bureaucracy that today stands between underprivileged families and their doctors.  We could do the same thing with the Head Start program, which spends $8.1 billion every year through a federal bureaucracy without yielding any lasting educational benefits. The data doesn’t tell us that pre-K education and health insurance for poor families are bad – just that the federal government does a lousy job of providing them. So instead, let’s allow states to implement real reforms that give low-income families access to educational and health opportunities somewhere besides the federal bureaucracy. In Utah, for instance, our legislature has created a special task force to study the prospects of “charity care” – affordable medical services for poor families provided not by government but by individuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities. That model might not work in every state – but every state should have the freedom to solve problems their own way, according to their own values and priorities.  We need similar reforms to open up our elementary and secondary schools – giving underprivileged parents and children access to the same opportunities that wealthy Americans take for granted. We need to expand access to higher education, to reform our accreditation system to allow federal aid to follow students to new and diverse options: customized courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus, even professional training and apprenticeships. Another area ripe for reform is the federal government’s criminal justice and prison system. The simple fact is that in America today, we put too many people in prison for too long, with too little benefit to our society. If inmates are violent and threats to our communities, then we have a moral responsibility to keep them locked up. If they are not violent and pose no threat, however, if they have reformed and are ready to return to their families and communities, we have just as much moral duty to get them re-integrated into our nation’s networks of social and economic mobility. I’m working on bipartisan legislation to reform federal sentencing and incarceration policies, following the transformative example of innovative states. If we are serious about access to opportunity for all, then we have to put “rehabilitation” back into the vocabulary of the federal prison system. There is so much more to do – on issues ranging from housing to adoption to labor to mental health. And of course, the best thing we can do to help the unemployed find jobs, and low-income workers find higher-income work is to finally get our economy growing again. Reforms to our tax, regulatory, energy, and transportation systems that spur private investment and job creation can do more for upward mobility than anything else in government’s power. And certainly more than any of the divisive, special-interest pandering that the Washington establishments of both parties cynically substitute for serious debate and reform. Though many Republicans in Congress are building a serious anti-poverty agenda the right way – you’ll hear from my friends Paul Ryan and Jim Jordan and others today – others are tempted by what they see as an easier way. Too many in our party today seem to have convinced themselves that electoral success depends on adopting the Left’s strategy of dividing the American people: slice them up into superficial identity groups, and assume that struggling African-Americans, struggling Latinos, struggling Asian-Americans, struggling whites, struggling single parents, struggling unskilled workers, struggling young people, struggling immigrants, and struggling blue collar workers all want different things. But don’t they all really want the same thing? To not be struggling? Special-interest policymaking that pits Americans against each other, is the problem, not the solution. The things that truly fight poverty – economic growth, education, innovation, voluntary exchange – create opportunities for everyone. I have no idea if empowering poor families – regardless of what they look like – to overcome poverty through the cooperative communities of the market economy and civil society will help the Republican Party. But I do know it will help the American people – which is what the Republican Party is supposed to be for. And finally, we simply must begin to address what we might call America’s “other marriage debate.” It is uncomfortable to talk about, and almost impossible to legislate. But the fact is, the problem of poverty in America is directly linked to family breakdown and the erosion of marriage among low-income families and communities. Implicit marriage penalties in our tax code and welfare programs surely need legislative remedies. But what we’re really talking about is a question of culture, not policy incentives. For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have employed terms like “family values” and “marriage” primarily as partisan wedges, cudgels to attack ideological opponents.  This fact did not create America’s marriage crisis – but it hasn’t helped, either. And now, seemingly every week, scholars are producing more evidence about the social and economic consequences of this essentially moral question. We now have scientific consensus supporting what were once thought to be merely traditions and intuitions. According to one study, the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation are more than $100 billion per year – a staggering sum that nonetheless pales in comparison to the social and human costs, borne disproportionately by innocent children. Yet, this data has arrived at a moment when the controversies about same-sex marriage tend to overwhelm any political discussion of the institution. It could be said that the political sensitivity of marriage today might be a good reason not to bring it up at all. But I think the data makes this the perfect time to begin this debate precisely because it will require such sensitivity on all sides. In an earlier era, our assumptions and vocabulary might have expressed judgment instead of compassion, and closed doors instead of opening them. Though the foundational importance of family has not changed – times and attitudes have. Today, no serious secularist thinks the institution of marriage is intrinsically oppressive. And no serious traditionalist thinks of the children of single mothers as “illegitimate.”  Even if we remove morality and religion from the question entirely, a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economic opportunity and multiplier of human and social capital in this world. To say that children tend to do best when raised by their married mom and dad is not a political opinion – it is a demonstrable fact.  Saying so does not demean or degrade other family structures. And fear of facts does not make us sensitive – it leaves us ignorant. Public policy need not incentivize people to get married – for most people, life already does. What public policy – and even more importantly, the people who make and influence public policy – must do is to finally accept and embrace and celebrate that fact. And then see what we can do – together - to help. Sincerely doing so could do more to win the war on poverty than anything else discussed at this conference today. I want to close with a story from the history of my church and my state. In October 1856, two groups of handcart pioneers on their way to Utah were stuck on the plains of Wyoming: short of provisions, with winter coming, the ground so hard they could not dig graves for those who expired in the cold. In what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings. Instead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of the handcart groups. It told of: “between five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling, chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.”  Brigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message: “Many of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts … and they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.” He said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those pioneers in the wilderness. “I will tell you all,” Young said, “that your faith… and profession of religion, will never save one soul of you… unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching....  Go and bring in those people now on the plains.”  The rescue party quickly assembled and headed East.  Days later, they reached the pioneers – with food and blankets and hope. The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their rescuers, to Salt Lake – home at last, where they belonged. Today, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are not some government’s brothers and sisters – they are ours. And the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power – individually, together, and where necessary through government… to bring them in: to bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living, to bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life, and to welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind. Thank you, and God bless.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=181167d7-c23e-4b85-a362-e8bb1b148196,Lee Outlines Conservative Anti-Poverty Agenda,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee outlined a conservative anti-poverty agenda to address the growing opportunity crisis in America.  His speech, at a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, detailed the causes of social immobility among the working and middle class and charted several reforms that clear a path to help individuals and families stuck in poverty. “Nineteen-sixty-four wasn’t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight,” said Sen. Lee. “To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans’ access to our market economy and civil society and clear them.” Lee previewed several pieces of legislation, some with bipartisan support, that could be part of a conservative anti-poverty agenda, such as changing the current incentive structure to today’s welfare programs, increasing flexibility for states in Medicaid and Head Start, expanding access to higher education through accreditation reform, as well as improving our criminal justice and prison systems.  “What makes America exceptional – and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form… Organic communities formed within the free market and civil society’s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to,” said Lee. “Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It’s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out.” Read the full speech (html version) here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/11/bring-them-in Bring Them In: Senator Lee Outlines Conservative Anti-Poverty Agenda",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=2748a4db-f623-47d9-8b5c-83f2d78962e6,Bring Them In,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"It’s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.  Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on. It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it’s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us. And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line. Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility. A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program – which provides health insurance to the poor – produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade. We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up. We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography. All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech - America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it. First, let’s be clear about one thing.  The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, and the self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For more than two hundred years, the United States – through trial and error, through good times and bad – has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of the world. The United States has become so wealthy that it is easy to forget that, as Michael Novak once noted, most affluent Americans can actually remember when their own families were poor. Upward mobility has never been easy. It has always and everywhere required backbreaking work, personal discipline, and at least a little luck. But if upward mobility was not universal in America, it was the norm. From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty – we were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society. We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But really, they are networks of people and information and opportunity. What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone – regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on themselves or the government, but on each other. For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation. In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself is to look out for your neighbors.  Together, these twin networks of service-based success enabled millions of ordinary Americans to make our economy very wealthy and our society truly rich… long before Lyndon Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government authority. These human – and humane – networks empowered Americans, unlike any people on earth or in history, to protect not just themselves but each other from both material want and social isolation. Now, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other’s lives and meet common challenges.  As President Obama said in his second inaugural: “No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.” But by “together,” of course, he meant only “government.” This discredited mindset – which insists collective action can only mean state action - is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects social solidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communities for professional community organizers. It distrusts and denies the bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highest expression of our dignity. Look at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional – and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form. Free enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space - between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - where we live, and love, and flourish… where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life… where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it… together. In America, government did not invade or replace that space. Government protected and expanded it. That is how we proved to the world that freedom doesn’t mean “you’re on your own.” Freedom means “we’re all in this together.” The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation “of plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.” Organic communities formed within the free market and civil society’s networks of opportunity are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to. And that’s what America was all about. Since the dawn of time, rich and powerful men, and friends of the king, always had access to opportunity. What made America different is that here, everyone did, and government’s job was to make sure of it. This is an important point, for progressives to learn and conservatives to remember: the constitutionally limited but indispensable role that government played in America’s original war on poverty. That role was best expressed by a president who understood poverty better than most. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the “leading object” of American government was: “to elevate the condition of men - to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.” In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what government ought to do about it. As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity – a lack of access to those social and economic networks where human opportunities are created. Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor – they were poor mostly because they were isolated. And so, in America’s original war on poverty, government did not give the poor other people’s money. It gave them access to other people. In Lincoln’s era – even during a cataclysmic war that was itself a struggle for human freedom and opportunity – that meant dredging rivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods weren’t designed to make poverty more tolerable – but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at which knowledge could be developed and shared. Poor farmers and trappers in Lincoln’s Mid-West were no worse at their trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. They just didn’t enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and economic capital. In the same way, poor children today do not lack the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in our market economy and civil society. But they absolutely lack the same access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and those skills are acquired. Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting people up. It’s about bringing people in. And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the war on poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and society the individuals, families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked out. Nineteen-sixty-four wasn’t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simply by offering criticism, but alternatives. Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americans’ access to our market economy and civil society and clear them. And if we’re looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, we’ve certainly come to the right place! Today, many of those obstructions are themselves government policies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged families can take toward social mobility and economic security. Today’s government-centric system penalizes marriage, which a mountain of evidence now shows is the single most empowering social and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducing benefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of these poverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent. Thus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophies community interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms and dads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old and young, native and immigrant. Meanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare to health care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosion of fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities. And so conservatives need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not only corrects – but transcends – existing policies. Anyone looking for ideas would do well to visit my home state of Utah, where a combination of smart, efficient government, a growing, prosperous economy, an active and faithful civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world, have made Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in the entire country. But first and foremost, we should at least pledge to do no more harm. There is no good reason the federal government should maintain 79 separate means-tested programs. There is no good reason why almost none of these programs feature the kind of work-requirements that helped transition millions of Americans into jobs after the 1996 reform. And there is no good reason federal policy should reward states for higher spending rather than improved results. And so one of our first priorities should be to simply get existing federal programs under control. And I am working with the Heritage Foundation and several colleagues on legislation to do just that. Second, just as we cannot spend our way out of poverty, we cannot really cut our way out, either. We need to fundamentally fix the system so that every dollar we do spend actually connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market and civil society.  One way to do this would be to block-grant Medicaid funds to the states, eliminating the federal bureaucracy that today stands between underprivileged families and their doctors.  We could do the same thing with the Head Start program, which spends $8.1 billion every year through a federal bureaucracy without yielding any lasting educational benefits. The data doesn’t tell us that pre-K education and health insurance for poor families are bad – just that the federal government does a lousy job of providing them. So instead, let’s allow states to implement real reforms that give low-income families access to educational and health opportunities somewhere besides the federal bureaucracy. In Utah, for instance, our legislature has created a special task force to study the prospects of “charity care” – affordable medical services for poor families provided not by government but by individuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities. That model might not work in every state – but every state should have the freedom to solve problems their own way, according to their own values and priorities.  We need similar reforms to open up our elementary and secondary schools – giving underprivileged parents and children access to the same opportunities that wealthy Americans take for granted. We need to expand access to higher education, to reform our accreditation system to allow federal aid to follow students to new and diverse options: customized courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus, even professional training and apprenticeships. Another area ripe for reform is the federal government’s criminal justice and prison system. The simple fact is that in America today, we put too many people in prison for too long, with too little benefit to our society. If inmates are violent and threats to our communities, then we have a moral responsibility to keep them locked up. If they are not violent and pose no threat, however, if they have reformed and are ready to return to their families and communities, we have just as much moral duty to get them re-integrated into our nation’s networks of social and economic mobility. I’m working on bipartisan legislation to reform federal sentencing and incarceration policies, following the transformative example of innovative states. If we are serious about access to opportunity for all, then we have to put “rehabilitation” back into the vocabulary of the federal prison system. There is so much more to do – on issues ranging from housing to adoption to labor to mental health. And of course, the best thing we can do to help the unemployed find jobs, and low-income workers find higher-income work is to finally get our economy growing again. Reforms to our tax, regulatory, energy, and transportation systems that spur private investment and job creation can do more for upward mobility than anything else in government’s power. And certainly more than any of the divisive, special-interest pandering that the Washington establishments of both parties cynically substitute for serious debate and reform. Though many Republicans in Congress are building a serious anti-poverty agenda the right way – you’ll hear from my friends Paul Ryan and Jim Jordan and others today – others are tempted by what they see as an easier way. Too many in our party today seem to have convinced themselves that electoral success depends on adopting the Left’s strategy of dividing the American people: slice them up into superficial identity groups, and assume that struggling African-Americans, struggling Latinos, struggling Asian-Americans, struggling whites, struggling single parents, struggling unskilled workers, struggling young people, struggling immigrants, and struggling blue collar workers all want different things. But don’t they all really want the same thing? To not be struggling? Special-interest policymaking that pits Americans against each other, is the problem, not the solution. The things that truly fight poverty – economic growth, education, innovation, voluntary exchange – create opportunities for everyone. I have no idea if empowering poor families – regardless of what they look like – to overcome poverty through the cooperative communities of the market economy and civil society will help the Republican Party. But I do know it will help the American people – which is what the Republican Party is supposed to be for. And finally, we simply must begin to address what we might call America’s “other marriage debate.” It is uncomfortable to talk about, and almost impossible to legislate. But the fact is, the problem of poverty in America is directly linked to family breakdown and the erosion of marriage among low-income families and communities. Implicit marriage penalties in our tax code and welfare programs surely need legislative remedies. But what we’re really talking about is a question of culture, not policy incentives. For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have employed terms like “family values” and “marriage” primarily as partisan wedges, cudgels to attack ideological opponents.  This fact did not create America’s marriage crisis – but it hasn’t helped, either. And now, seemingly every week, scholars are producing more evidence about the social and economic consequences of this essentially moral question. We now have scientific consensus supporting what were once thought to be merely traditions and intuitions. According to one study, the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation are more than $100 billion per year – a staggering sum that nonetheless pales in comparison to the social and human costs, borne disproportionately by innocent children. Yet, this data has arrived at a moment when the controversies about same-sex marriage tend to overwhelm any political discussion of the institution. It could be said that the political sensitivity of marriage today might be a good reason not to bring it up at all. But I think the data makes this the perfect time to begin this debate precisely because it will require such sensitivity on all sides. In an earlier era, our assumptions and vocabulary might have expressed judgment instead of compassion, and closed doors instead of opening them. Though the foundational importance of family has not changed – times and attitudes have. Today, no serious secularist thinks the institution of marriage is intrinsically oppressive. And no serious traditionalist thinks of the children of single mothers as “illegitimate.”  Even if we remove morality and religion from the question entirely, a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economic opportunity and multiplier of human and social capital in this world. To say that children tend to do best when raised by their married mom and dad is not a political opinion – it is a demonstrable fact.  Saying so does not demean or degrade other family structures. And fear of facts does not make us sensitive – it leaves us ignorant. Public policy need not incentivize people to get married – for most people, life already does. What public policy – and even more importantly, the people who make and influence public policy – must do is to finally accept and embrace and celebrate that fact. And then see what we can do – together - to help. Sincerely doing so could do more to win the war on poverty than anything else discussed at this conference today. I want to close with a story from the history of my church and my state. In October 1856, two groups of handcart pioneers on their way to Utah were stuck on the plains of Wyoming: short of provisions, with winter coming, the ground so hard they could not dig graves for those who expired in the cold. In what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings. Instead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of the handcart groups. It told of: “between five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling, chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.”  Brigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message: “Many of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts … and they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.” He said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those pioneers in the wilderness. “I will tell you all,” Young said, “that your faith… and profession of religion, will never save one soul of you… unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching....  Go and bring in those people now on the plains.”  The rescue party quickly assembled and headed East.  Days later, they reached the pioneers – with food and blankets and hope. The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their rescuers, to Salt Lake – home at last, where they belonged. Today, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are not some government’s brothers and sisters – they are ours. And the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power – individually, together, and where necessary through government… to bring them in: to bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living, to bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life, and to welcome them and their children home to an America that leaves no one behind. Thank you, and God bless.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=1e39edb2-d423-4dbc-a533-ef0b1323a711,What's Next for Conservatives,2013-11-13,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Pinterest Vekeo About Mike Utah First Mobile Offices Town Hall Meetings Utah Veterans and MIlitary The Utah First Blog 2016 Annual Report Services Academy Nominations Flag Requests Tour Requests Senate Internships Federal Assistance Request a Meeting Eagle Scout Recognition Issues Conservative Reform Agenda Protecting the First Amendment Protecting the Second Amendment Protecting Life Honoring Our Veterans Public Lands Article I Project Bears Ears National Monument Feedback Social Capital Project Press Press Releases Blog Videos Op-Eds Speeches An Agenda for Our Time The Laudable Pursuit Legislation Sponsored Legislation Co-Sponsored Legislation Voting Record Contact Newsletter Signup Washington, D.C. Office Salt Lake City Office St. George Office Jell-O with the Senator Privacy Policy Contact Senator Lee Federal Regulations Impact Ogden Office Access Live Events",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=c2ba0fdf-5d65-4196-9057-db94d8ba16af,What's Next for Conservatives,2013-11-12,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In the wake of the effort to defund Obamacare, conservatives around Washington and around the country are wondering, “Where do we go from here?” In Washington, insiders say we must choose either to become simply an obstructionist, ideological rump, or moderate our views and submit to the establishment’s leadership. These have always been Washington’s acceptable versions of conservatism: marginalized or squishy. The challenge for conservatives today is to reject that false choice, and choose our own way forward: a way that is at once principled, positive, and confident. Anti-establishment conservatives and libertarians don’t have to choose between being revolutionaries or reformers – history says we ought to be both. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who authored the famous “11th Commandment” (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.”) and also primaried a sitting president of his own party. There is nothing inconsistent between support for competitive Republican primaries, and for a unifying, inclusive, positive, ideas-based politics. There is nothing that prevents us from fighting to the last breath to repeal Obamacare, for example, while simultaneously developing the policies we want to replace it with. Calvin Coolidge was right when he said it was more important to stop bad laws than pass good ones – but his own place in history was confirmed by what his administration did – cut taxes, reformed the budget, spurred tremendous economic growth – not what it didn’t do. Indeed, putting the two together – having both the courage of our convictions as well as the policies of our convictions – is what real conservative leadership has always looked like. Reagan refused to accept the media’s narrative about Republicans – that you have to either be a “thoughtful,” “serious” centrist, or a reckless, ignorant conservative. That’s why he was successful, and the Left hated him for it. But Reagan’s victory was not just about his sunny personality. In the years between Reagan’s 1976 primary defeat and his 1980 victory, he and conservatives around the country went about the hard, heroic work of remaking the Republican Party, preparing it – politically and substantively – for new generation of conservative leadership. Grassroots conservatives in that era infused the G.O.P. with new energy that put the liberal Old Guard on notice, and took over state parties from the discredited Nixon/Ford establishment. Meanwhile, conservative and libertarian intellectuals and elected officials – people like Jack Kemp, James Buckley, Milton Friedman, Antonin Scalia, and Irving Kristol, and most of all, Reagan himself – developed a whole new reform agenda that modernized and redefined conservatism and the Republican Party. Peace through strength replaced détente. Supply-side economics replaced “green eye-shade” budgeting. Originalism replaced the “living constitution.” Pro-life replaced pro-Roe v. Wade. The establishment of that time was not moderate – they were outright liberals. And conservatives defeated them, outright, by translating “anti-establishment” into “pro-reform.” Today, as in Reagan’s generation, conservatives must reapply our core conservative principles to fit the challenges of our time. We need to be aggressively pro-reform and show Americans we have alternatives – superior alternatives – to unaffordable and unfair big government. Specifically, and most especially, this new conservative agenda must speak to the challenges and aspirations of those Americans too often ignored by both parties: the poor and middle class families and communities that big government is leaving behind. As it did in the late 1970s, history is once again inviting conservatives to lead. After Reagan’s loss in 1976, conservatives didn’t simply start a “civil war” – they started a civil debate. And once they chose to lead with their ideas, the establishment never had a chance. If conservatives want to build a new, principled Republican Party, we are first going to have to build a new, principled conservative agenda. We know we are going to have to reform the tax code, the budget, the welfare system, eliminate corporate welfare and cronyism, and much else: but how? Consultants and insiders say this isn’t the time – for now we should just hammer away at the president. But Barack Obama is never going to be on another ballot. To enact the reforms all conservatives know we need, we need to win more than elections – we need to win a mandate. To gain the political and moral authority to do what we need to do, conservatives have to put our ideas before the people, and ask for their support. And, as constitutionalists, and small-“r” republicans, we shouldn’t want it any other way. If we mean to save the Republican Party and rescue American exceptionalism, conservatives today have to do more than fight the good fight – we have to win the Great Debate. I can’t speak for all conservatives, but all conservatives should know, that’s where I’m going from here. Originally published in RedState: What's Next for Conservatives",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/veterans-day-message,Veterans Day Message,2013-11-11,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, we celebrate Veterans Day. It’s a day we set aside to honor our true American heroes who have served in the military to protect our great nation. I come from a family with deep roots in our Military. I was an Air Force Pilot for 14 years, which I really do feel was the coolest job in the world. My father served as a pilot in World War II and 4 of my 5 brothers also served in the military. I have always said that the military is the greatest incubator for leadership and I believe some of the best men and women in our country have worn the military uniform. This Veterans Day, I am incredibly humbled to pay tribute our nation’s veterans. It’s because of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families, that we are able to enjoy the freedoms of the United States of America. Last week, I paid tribute to Veterans in a speech on the House Floor. Click on the picture below to watch the video. Stay Connected: For me to better represent you in Congress, I hope that you will stay connected to my office. Follow me onFacebook, where I regularly post updates and give you a forum to voice your opinion. Click here to see a full list of the legislation I am sponsoring or co-sponsoring.  You can also view many of my House floor speeches and interviews where I discuss the work of Congress on my youtube channel. As always, feel free to email me if you have any concerns our comments. Your Congressman, Chris Stewart Utah's 2nd Congressional District",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6eabdd64-463d-471c-ad89-2dab290534f4,Hatch to Honor Utah Veteran at Saturday's University of Utah Football Game,2013-11-10,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In advance of Veterans Day, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will present 95-year-old retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel H. Grant Keeler Layton, Utah with a Prisoner of War (POW) Medal during the first quarter break at the University of Utah game this Saturday at Rice Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Lt. Colonel Keeler was a prisoner of war for almost six months during World War II after the plane he was piloting was shot down over Germany. “World War II veterans are some of the greatest Americans we’ve ever known, and as we honor our nation’s veterans this weekend, it’s my true privilege to stand with Lt. Colonel Keeler and present him with this great honor,” stated Hatch. “Lt. Colonel is a truly courageous and patriotic American. Even after being held in two POW camps, he continued to serve in the United States military for more than 26 years. I am truly humbled by our nation’s veterans, and it is because of Lt. Colonel Keeler and so many others like him that we can continue to enjoy the sacred gift of freedom.” The plane Lt. Colonel Keeler was piloting was shot down over Merseburg, Germany on November 2, 1944. Lt. Colonel Keeler and his crew were immediately captured by German troops, and he was first held at the POW Camp Stalag LUFT III, 60 miles southeast of Berlin. Then, because of the advancing Russian Army, Lt. Colonel Keeler was moved to Stalag VII A at Moosburg, Germany, 30 miles northeast of Munich. He was freed on April 29, 1945 by U.S. General George Patton’s 3rd Army Corps. He continued to serve in the United States Air Force, ultimately retiring from active duty as a Lieutenant Colonel at the Da Nang Air Base in South Vietnam in 1971. The Prisoner of War Medal was not established until 1985; many years after Lt. Colonel Keeler had been in captivity. Hatch was able to procure this medal after it was brought to his attention that this Utah Veteran had not received all the medals he had earned. Joining Hatch on the field for the presentation will be members of Lt. Colonel Keeler’s family, and officials from the University of Utah.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011228/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=361532,Bishop Welcomes Neil Kornze as BLM Director,2013-11-08,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee, today released a statement regarding President Barack Obama’s official nomination of Neil Kornze as Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  Kornze has been serving as Interim Director since the departure of Director Mike Pool. “I enjoyed working with Director Pool and found him to be responsive, professional, and knowledgeable. I was disappointed to see him leave the BLM and hope to have a similar working relationship with Mr. Kornze.  I have heard some very good things about him from people I respect.  I look forward to working with him on matters concerning Utah and our nation’s public lands and hope he will be open-minded about the importance of multiple use.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d659976d-30f4-4f3f-8ff3-cb07fea7363f,"Grassley, Hatch Release Enrollment Data from Four Health Insurance Companies",2013-11-08,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah today released enrollment data from the four health insurance companies participating in the Washington, D.C., exchange set up via the President’s health care program.  The Obama Administration has refused to provide enrollment numbers to the American people. CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield: two enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 30, 2013. Kaiser Permanente: three enrollees from Oct. 1, 2013, through Oct. 31, 2013. UnitedHealthcare: no enrollment data from the exchange as of Nov. 4, 2013. Aetna:  no enrollment data as of Oct. 24, 2013. “A lot of Americans are getting cancellation notices from their current health care plan but they haven’t been able to enroll in a new plan,” Grassley said.  “The limbo and uncertainty are stressful for them, as they’ve been describing in emails to my office.  The chaos imposed on so many people is reason to at least delay the individual mandate, if not outright repeal it.” “With numbers like these, it's no wonder the Obama Administration hasn't wanted to release how many people have signed up for ObamaCare,” said Hatch.  “With data from DC's four participating health plans in, there's been a whopping five people enrolled in the city’s exchange. That’s right five. Whether it's significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed.” On Oct. 24, 2013, Grassley and Hatch wrote to the four companies participating in the Washington, D.C., health care exchange.  The Washington, D.C., exchange has four major plans and so provides a snapshot of how Americans fare in trying to join the new exchanges. Grassley and Hatch said news reports show problems with what are called “834 forms” that contain individual information that insurers use to enroll the individual in a health care plan.   Inaccurate or corrupted data would interfere with successful enrollment.  That has implications for when the Administration should enforce the individual mandate requiring enrollment.  It would be unfair to penalize people for not having health insurance when technical problems have impeded their enrollment, Grassley and Hatch said. The responses the senators received are available here, here, here and here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cdab5e9d-32c2-46bd-ba6c-4dc6c35feeac,Hatch Joins Effort to Protect Unborn Children,2013-11-07,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a longtime supporter of protecting the rights of unborn children, is cosponsoring the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, introduced today by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), which would ban most abortions nationwide for children over 20 weeks old. Scientific and medical evidence have indicated that 20 weeks is the point in which unborn children can feel pain. The legislation includes exemptions for cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life would be in danger. “Simple human compassion requires that we protect unborn children from the pain of abortion,” Hatch said. “Even abortion supporters say that the debate should be based on medical science, and we now know that each of us could feel pain as early as 20 weeks after conception. I hope that protecting children from pain can be a basis for common ground and that this bill can become law.” Companion legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/sponsored-legislation?ContentRecord_id=e76aab49-e043-4374-9e6f-b4409baadd7f,Sponsored and Co-Sponsored Legislation,2013-11-07,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"8402 Federal Building 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84138 Tel: (801) 524-4380 If you are seeking help with a problem involving a federal agency, and if it is an emergency, (e.g. Visas, passports, disability services and benefits, etc.), please call the Salt Lake City office to ensure prompt assistance.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9c6fe64e-1284-495c-a734-497716ab95e5,Hatch Statement At Finance Committee Hearing Examining Challenges With Obamacare Exchanges,2013-11-06,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, delivered the following opening statement at a committee hearing examining the challenges of the health law’s insurance exchanges with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius:             It’s been nearly six months since you last appeared before the committee.  Given all that’s gone on in that time – particularly with the implementation of Obamacare – I’d say that today’s appearance is long past due.  When you were here way back in April, you assured us that that the implementation was on track, that it was all going smoothly, and that the exchanges would be ready to go live on October 1st.  Now, it appears that your statements from the previous hearing were, at best, misinformed.              From where I sit, things do not seem to be going smoothly at all.  In fact, I think we would all agree that thus far, the implementation of the so-called Affordable Care Act has been an absolute debacle.  You admitted as much last week when you testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee when you said ""hold me accountable for the debacle, I’m responsible.” Madame Secretary, while I am glad that you are accepting responsibility for this disastrous rollout, I would have preferred that you and the rest of the administration were honest with us to begin with.  Perhaps in April you really did believe that things were on track.  But, you had to have had several indications before October 1st that there were problems with the website and with the exchanges It is simply inexcusable that the members of this committee were not told earlier that these problems were occurring.  And, it wasn’t for want of asking. I personally sent you a number of letters asking for details on the implementation of the health care law, many of which were ignored entirely.  This cavalier attitude toward a Senate committee with oversight jurisdiction over your agency is, put simply, appalling and needs to be rectified.  If the past month has been any indication, there are likely to be numerous additional problems ahead.  That being the case, I think it is only proper that you provide this committee with more regular updates on the issues you are dealing with.  In fact, I would ask that you come here once a month for the next six months to provide the committee with status updates on the implementation of Obamacare.  I hope you will agree to do so.  Like I said, Madame Secretary, it’s clear that the problems you’ve encountered thus far were not unforeseen.     Two separate reports – one from the Government Accountability Office in June and another from Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in August – identified significant implementation challenges months ahead of the October 1st deadline.  Yet, there is no indication that the warnings from these two independent, non-partisan government watchdogs were heeded by the administration or that any thought was given to delaying the startup date as a result. When you were here in April, I raised concerns about whether adequate testing was occurring to ensure that privacy controls were in place for the exchanges.  In fact, I specifically asked you about having an independent entity review the entire system before it went live to ensure that all appropriate privacy and security controls were in place.  You assured me that all testing protocols were being followed and that privacy issues were a high priority.  However, we now know that no end-to-end testing of the system occurred before the system went live. None.  In fact, key CMS officials knew on September 27th that there was a high security risk to the system if it went up as planned.  My colleagues and I have sent several letters since the spring asking for more information on what privacy controls were being instituted as part of the exchange infrastructure and asking for details about whether or not testing was being done to address the privacy and security concerns we have raised.  To date, we have not received any answers to our questions. So not only can millions of Americans not login to the website successfully, but those who have actually succeeded could now find themselves at the mercy of identity thieves across the globe.  I would call this a less than ideal situation for our constituents. That brings us to another set of issues that I hope you’ll be able to shed some light on today. Let me start with a simple premise – words matter.  We have all heard the golden saying – honesty is the best policy. Unfortunately this age-old wisdom doesn’t seem to apply to the Obamacare pledges. More and more promises made at the time this law was passed are now crumbling under the weight of reality on a daily basis. Let’s start with the famous pledge that health reform would reduce costs by $2500 for an average family. The truth is, with all the new mandates going into effect, the cost of health insurance in this country is projected to rise at a remarkable rate.  Some studies – including one from the Manhattan Institute – estimate that individual market premiums will increase by as much as 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide.  Then, of course, there was President Obama’s promise when the law was passed that “if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it” and that “if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”  This, to put it bluntly, is simply untrue.  In fact, the Washington Post, on October 30th, gave it Four Pinocchio’s, which represents the highest level of untruthfulness. You really have to try to get Four Pinocchio’s. You don’t simply get it for making a misstatement. Yet, it wasn’t until the last few weeks that people in the administration and at the White House started trying to rewrite what the President said.  And let’s be candid - it wasn’t a newfound honest streak that changed the administration’s tone – it was the fact that Americans started receiving cancellation notices from their insurers.  According to the Associated Press, 3.5 million people have received such notices thus far.  And, the same fate is certain to befall millions more before all is said and done.  Put simply, there is a long track record of broken promises and untruthful answers to both this committee and the American people with respect to how this law would work and the impact it would have.              I hope that will stop today.  No more caveats. No more excuses. No more spin.  Just give us the truth.  Answers like we don’t know and we were wrong are perfectly acceptable, so long as that is the truth.   Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.  As you can see, we have a lot to discuss.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9619eb69-ecc1-4664-bf63-9fe1d4f69c84,"Hatch, Coburn Warn Of Potential Obamacare Subsidy Fraud; Cite Problems With Earned Income Tax Credits",2013-11-05,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"On the heels of a new Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report that found the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has failed to reduce improper Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) payments, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) today pressed the IRS for additional answers on how the agency will manage ObamaCare’s premium subsidies, complex tax credits designed to defray the cost of purchasing health insurance, based on household income. In a letter to Principal Deputy Commissioner Daniel Werfel, the Senators questioned whether the IRS was equipped to process the subsidies which are both advanceable and refundable – meaning pay out first and verify later – and asked for details on the policies that are in place to curb improper payments to taxpayers. “This [TIGTA] audit raises serious concerns about the IRS’s unwillingness or inability to successfully prevent billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted on erroneous tax credit claims.  We are particularly worried about these findings, given the IRS’s role generally as the primary agency administering a range of credits and specifically in overseeing and implementing the premium tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” wrote the Senators.  “Similar to the EITC, the Affordable Care Act offers refundable tax credits for certain eligible individuals.  However, we believe that a range of provisions in federal law, regulations, and administrative practices actually leave the health care overhaul even more seriously susceptible to fraud or abuse than the EITC program already is.” The text of the letter to Principal Deputy Commissioner Werfel is below and a signed copy can be found HERE: Daniel WerfelPrincipal Deputy CommissionerInternal Revenue Service1111 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20230 Dear Principal Deputy Commissioner Werfel:  Recently, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has “made little improvement in reducing the improper payment rate for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) since being required to report estimates of these payments to Congress.”[1] In 2012, the IRS allowed about $13.6 billion in improper EITC payments to tax filers who were ineligible for the credit.  Unfortunately, that means that up to 25 percent of EITC last year payments were improper. Back in 2008, TIGTA recommended that IRS come up with alternative methods for identifying and preventing improper payments. However, TIGTA’s recent audit revealed that IRS has not taken any steps to address this recommendation.[2]  In fact, TIGTA found that IRS does not even have a goal for reducing future improper payments, or a plan in place to meet such targets.[3]  The IRS’s failure to take recommended steps to increase program integrity means the program continues to be at risk.  In 2011, up to $16.7 billion in tax credits were issued improperly, and in 2010, the amount was roughly the same—$18.4 billion. This audit raises serious concerns about the IRS’s unwillingness or inability to successfully prevent billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted on erroneous tax credit claims.  We are particularly worried about these findings, given the IRS’s role generally as the primary agency administering a range of credits and specifically in overseeing and implementing the premium tax credits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Similar to the EITC, the Affordable Care Act offers refundable tax credits for certain eligible individuals.  However, we believe that a range of provisions in federal law, regulations, and administrative practices actually leave the health care overhaul even more seriously susceptible to fraud or abuse than the EITC program already is. First, to try to prevent improper payments for federally-facilitated exchanges, IRS will rely partly on personal attestations of income, and only audit a random sample of applicants who claim that their income decreased more than 10 percent from amounts found in last year’s tax filing starting in 2014.[4] State-based exchanges will not be required to perform this audit until 2015. Second, because of a change the Obama administration made this past summer, premium credit applicants in state-based exchanges can simply provide a personal attestation that they do not receive qualifying insurance through their employer to receive their premium credits in 2014. No further documentation is required.[5] Third, a provision in current law actually limits how much the federal government can recover from sending a greater amount of subsidy to consumers than for which they were eligible.[6] In other words, the law currently prevents the recovery of overpayments paid to individuals who turn out not to be eligible for them.   This cap on recovering overpayments will prevent federal officials from pursuing billions of dollars in overpayments. In fact, according to CBO, if that cap on recapturing subsidy overpayments were eliminated, taxpayers would save $43 billion over a decade.[7] Finally, the concerns lie not just with the EITC, but with other tax requirements as well. A more recent TIGTA report found that even some of the standard income and withholding verification processes at the IRS may be failing to prevent fraudulent tax refunds.[8] As the IRS watchdog explained, “most current year third?party information is not available until well after the tax return filing season begins and tax returns are processed,” and, as a result, a 2012 audit shows that nearly 1.5 million tax returns “were not detected by the IRS as potentially fraudulent despite having the same characteristics as IRS-confirmed identity theft fraudulent tax returns.”  Overall, taken together, these realities paint a worrisome picture of the fraud that may be anticipated under PPACA. The premium tax credits vulnerability to fraud and abuse is significant because the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the credits cost taxpayers $796 billion over the coming decade.[9]  If these health coverage premium tax credits experience an improper payment rate similar to that of the EITC, about $200 billion taxpayer dollars could be wasted or lost to fraud. Therefore, to better understand how IRS will manage the potential for significant fraud and abuse in applications for PPACA premium tax credits, we respectfully ask for responses to the following questions. What is IRS’s plan to avoid improper payments made to applicants for premium tax credits, and how will IRS recover such improper payments? To what extent is IRS planning to identify or implement alternative compliance methods to avoid or recoup improper premium tax credits, similar to TIGTA’s 2008 recommendation regarding EITC? Given the history of high improper payments for EITC, what assurances can you provide that premium tax credits will not result in the same rate of fraud and abuse? What lessons have you learned from addressing EITC improper payments that could be applied to implementing the ACA? What are IRS’s 2014 targets for premium tax credit improper payments? Please provide your response no later than November 25, 2013.  Sincerely, HATCH COBURN",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=6d0e09c0-dc4a-45c5-9b85-034bd5984c43,Feedback for the Working Families Flexibility Act,2013-11-05,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"I have received some great feedback about the Working Families Flexibility Act since I introduced it last week.  Since government employees already enjoy the benefits that this law would create, there were those from the public sector who wanted to share their experience with these benefits: Love, love, love this!! I think one should be able to save more than 160hrs. My brother (state employee) had 3 months of comp/sick time together which saved his family when he got cancer. It took about 3 months to get through treatment. Thank u for doing this! -Carolyn A., Oregon I like your working family flexibility legislation. I was lucky enough to work where I could take comp time, and even though they didn't treat it as overtime at 1 1/2 hrs per hours worked, it still made it possible for me to work and raise my family. -Diann M. I have never understood in my 35 years of Human Resources and now small business owner, why public employees can utilize comp time off and private cannot. Every department of labor law should apply equally to public and private sector. Sharon O., Utah As this is a new proposal, there were those who just had more questions about how it would work. Hi Senator Lee, I am totally for this. Sometimes time is worth more than the pay. I do have one question. Is there any stipulation on how you use that time. For example, can you take a week, two weeks or a month (160 hours) at one time? Can your employer take any action against you i.e. layoff, firing or cutting your hours back if you do? I can see that this also could be on an individual company basis. -Christina G., Nevada That’s a great question.  How comp time is handled will be entirely decided by employers and employees. The purpose of the law is to give both companies and workers flexibility in determining the best use of comp time. The law requires employers and employees to establish a written agreement outlining the comp time options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his or her needs.  Once we eliminate the restrictions that are preventing this flexibility, employers will be free to develop innovative and competitive plans to attract and retain the best employees for their business. While I think this is a great plan that provides much-needed flexibility to employees, this plan also provides flexibility for employers: I have a small business with less than 15 employees, this would kill my business. Small businesses must be exempt! Ward W., Arizona I agree with Ward.  If a small business doesn't think offering comp time is a good fit for their business, then they can continue to choose to offer just overtime pay to their employees. I also received feedback from some who were concerned that this represented a new government intrusion into the opearations of small businesses.  It is worth recognizing that for many individuals, especially working parents, time is sometimes more valuable than money. Sadly, under current law, the only option available to private-sector employees who work overtime is to receive monetary compensation at 1 1/2 times their normal pay. In 1978, Congress passed the “Federal Employee Flexible and Compressed Work Schedule Act” providing Federal, State, and local governments the ability to give their employees a choice between overtime pay or paid time off for working overtime hours.  This legal disparity unfairly discriminates against private-sector employees and impedes those employers who want to offer their employees this flexibility to balance work and family obligations.  So, in effect, this law is an attempt to remove existing restrictions as opposed to adding new restrictions.   I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to leave me their feedback on this proposal.  If you would like to leave your feedback, click here:",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=64c5b382-6343-4402-93fa-ff03f77b4f25,Hatch: Trade Negotiations Taking Place in Utah a Sign of Beehive State's Impact Around the World,2013-11-01,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over all international trade matters, today welcomed the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) discussions scheduled to take place in Utah from November 18-23, 2013. The TPP is a proposed regional, Asia-Pacific free trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The Asia-Pacific region represents more than forty percent of the world’s trade, and as a group, TPP countries represent the largest goods and services export market for the United States.The November meetings will be an important part of a series of ongoing negotiations between the participating countries as they work towards concluding an agreement, which would then be subject to Congressional approval. “From the medical device and dietary supplement industries, to farmers and ranchers, trade has an enormous impact on Utah and our entire country,” Hatch said. “Trade supports more than 350,000 jobs in Utah, so to have the chief negotiators from the 12 participating nations in our state to continue working towards an agreement on this monumental trade initiative is significant. Utah exports billions of dollars in goods and services around the world, and it’s a testament to the great people and businesses leading Utah’s economy. As negotiations on the TPP continue, I will continue to highlight the importance of open markets to Utah’s economy and ensure that Utah’s interests are fully represented.” A longtime advocate of breaking down trade barriers, Hatch has championed efforts to enhance America’s global competitiveness and increase access for American farmers, workers and job-creators into international markets. Most recently, Hatch helped to successfully enact job-creating trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. He has long fought to preserve intellectual property (IP) standards within international trade negotiations and has called for the renewal of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to help open more markets for U.S. exports and ensure American businesses can successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. More information on the TPP can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=3d46386f-f613-4505-bd8a-7aec2eb0cc0d,"What Others are Saying about Senator Lee's ""What's Next for Conservatives?"" Speech",2013-11-01,2013,2013-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"A series of welfare, education and criminal justice reform proposals from Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin represent serious, conservative reflection on the task of governing. That doesn’t mean that Lee’s strategy would be the first choice of every conservative. Some conservatives might place less priority on expanding health care coverage through tax credits. Other conservatives might place a higher priority on cutting taxes on high-earners. The problem is that every faction of conservatives, even if united, add up to less than a majority. If limited government politics is to have a reasonable chance to succeed, conservatives will have to work together on a strategy they can all live with and that is designed to appeal to persuadable voters who are either middle-class or struggling to enter the middle-class. The thread that runs from Lee’s prior remarks at Heritage is worth considering. It seems to me that the Utah Senator is attempting something important and useful – building a philosophical bridge between the hardcore populists and the more traditional structure of Washington conservatism, attempting to prove that these tribes can coexist and actually work together. Though Lee’s speech is not meant to offer a detailed reform agenda for the right, he does identify a number of policy initiatives that are in tune with his vision of a family-friendly conservatism that speaks to the interrelated problems of entrenched poverty, middle-class squeeze, and pervasive rent-seeking. Inviting his fellow Republicans to join in a “Great Debate” over their platform, Lee proceeded to lay out his own vision for the future of the party, a sort of compassionate conservatism 2.0 aimed at fixing the social problems that preoccupy progressives — income inequality, access to higher education, deteriorating infrastructure — with policy initiatives that the tea party can love. But if you follow Lee closely, then you would know that yesterday's speech was part of a much larger and long-term effort formulate a conservative policy agenda that can unite the party and govern the country in the next century. Meanwhile, the Lee is plowing ahead, setting the stage to define his first term in office on his own terms and taking steps to show that he is more than an obstructionist, but can produce ideas sculpted to consider the needs of middle class families. In the last two days, he has released two pieces of legislation that he argues will support that end. Mike Lee, the senator from Utah, gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation last week that demands attention. The takeaway: Candidates need policy ideas that address the concerns of ordinary voters—and they have to campaign, and win, on those ideas. Lee noted that conservative scholars have a number of imaginative proposals that try to address the breakdown of the family, the rising cost of health insurance and higher education, the lengthening suburban commute, and out-of-control entitlement spending. There is no reason to believe Reagan would propose the very same solutions to today's problems that he pitched for those America faced 33 years ago. That doesn't mean he'd be more of a Democrat; it means he'd be a Republican focused on today. That is how today's GOP should emulate his generation. As for working-class Republicans, they’re not going to embrace class warfare anytime soon but this poll is a caution (another caution), I think, that party leaders need to follow Mike Lee’s lead and start concentrating more on this segment of their base. “You didn’t build that” is fine for ideologues like me but it doesn’t do much for that apolitical guy who’s been laid off for six months. In fact, remember this poll from Pew in 2011? “Like Mike Lee said, you can do both,” Walker said. “You don’t have to compromise one for the other, meaning you can stand up for your principles, you can push your core beliefs, and you can still govern effectively.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=06c452f2-9edd-430f-9443-c9af3d679349,"Hatch Praises Treasury Dept. for Changing FSA ""Use-or-Lose"" Rule, Says More Must Be Done",2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, said he’s pleased that the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have changed the so called “use-or-lose” rule for Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs) so that a $500 portion can now be rolled over to the following year.  Hatch, who has introduced legislation allowing $500 to roll over for FSAs and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) as well, believes FSAs and HSAs should be expanded since they are critical tools to help millions of Americans save and help pay for out-of-pocket health care costs.  “This was a good decision by the Treasury Department.  Allowing Americans who have one of these accounts to roll $500 over to the following year just makes sense and will give people more help to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs,” said Hatch.  “I’d like to see more done to expand these critical accounts that empower the individual to make informed health care decisions using money they saved.” Under the Affordable Care Act, FSA contributions were reduced from $5,000 to $2,500.  The law also created new limitations on HSAs and FSAs that prevent consumers from using those savings to purchase over the counter treatments like aspirin and cold medicine without a prescription. Hatch’s legislation, the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act, will streamline and simplify HSAs and FSAs for American families, seniors, and entrepreneurs. Specifically, the legislation will: allow a husband and wife to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA; remove the onerous new restrictions on the use of HSA and FSA dollars for the purchase of over-the-counter drugs; allow individuals to roll-over up to $500 from their FSA accounts; clarify the use of prescription drugs as preventive care that will not be subject to an HSA-eligible plan deductible; reauthorize the use of Medicaid health opportunity accounts; promote wellness by expanding the definition of qualified medical expenses to encourage more exercise and better diet; allow seniors enrolled in Medicare Part A to continue contributing to their HSAs; and allow for the purchase of low-premium health insurance and long-term care insurance with HSA dollars.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1de00975-65bf-4f31-a0b3-f4ffbf6757f9,Hatch: State Water Laws Must Trump Federal Permitting,2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today cosponsored the Water Rights Protection Act, legislation introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), that prevents federal agencies from requiring privately held water rights be turned over to the federal government. Over the past few years the U.S. Forest Service has attempted to require multiple use permit holders to turn over their privately owned water rights to the federal government as a condition of their permit renewal, prompting the legislation introduced today to protect state and individual water rights. “Water is the lifeblood in communities throughout Utah, and this common-sense bill simply ensures our farmers and ranchers are not forced to give up their private property rights without fair compensation,” Hatch said. “Requiring private individuals to turn over their privately owned water rights to the federal government would hurt Utah’s economy and give the Washington more authority over Utahns, and I’m going to work hard to stop it.”  The Water Rights Protection Act specifically prohibits the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from requiring the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government as a condition of a special use permit, lease or other land use arrangement. In addition to Hatch and Barrasso, Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) are co-sponsors of the Water Rights Protection Act. Background: In 2011, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) attempted to implement a water clause for ski area permit holders that required ski areas to turn over privately held water rights without compensation in order to receive a renewed USFS land permit. On December 19, 2012 a federal district court in Colorado struck down the USFS’s water clause. Now, the USFS is trying once again to implement this controversial policy through a revised water clause. If the USFS is allowed to move forward with this policy, it will open the door for other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to implement a similar policy for grazing permits and other multiple use activity that requires a federal land use permit and involves the use of water. The Water Rights Protection Act protects privately held water rights, prohibits federal takings, and upholds state water law by: Prohibiting agencies from implementing a permit condition that requires the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government in order to receive or renew a permit for the use of land; Prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from requiring water users to acquire rights for the United States rather than for the water user themselves; Upholding longstanding federal deference to state water law.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=99d0e7fd-5862-44fc-a6de-36dfda353480,"Senate, House Health Leaders Introduce Bipartisan Medicare SGR Replacement Proposal",2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), and House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), released a discussion draft outline to permanently fix the broken Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. The bipartisan, bicameral framework — released in a discussion draft —corrects a decade-long problem that has created uncertainty for millions of Medicare providers and beneficiaries. The leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have collaborated closely to develop a framework to solicit input to begin the committee process for a full repeal of the flawed formula. The discussion draft is available here.  Below is a summary of the SGR discussion draft. “After much input from key stakeholders we have come together to create a permanent fix to the Medicare physician payment formula,” said Chairman Baucus.  “For years, Medicare payments to doctors have been at risk of being slashed, limiting seniors’ access to high quality care.  Enough with the quick fixes.  Our proposal is for a new physician payment system that rewards value over volume. It will go a long way in improving the efficiency and quality of care for America’s seniors.” “For too long the flawed Medicare physician payment formula has jeopardized seniors' access to the high quality health care they deserve,” said Ranking Member Hatch. “With short-term fixes, Congress for years didn't meet the challenge with a real solution. That changes with this bipartisan framework we are unveiling today. We have put forward a permanent solution that repeals the current broken doctor payment system and replaces it with an innovative, new way that rewards physicians who provide quality health care.” “Providing a permanent solution to the broken SGR formula is vital to ensuring that seniors continue to have access to high quality care,” said Chairman Camp.  “This discussion draft is an important step in a long-term solution to this failed policy.  Creating a policy that rewards providers for delivering high-quality, efficient health care is the ultimate goal, and this draft brings us one step closer to that reality.” “This bipartisan framework is a welcome first step both toward fixing a broken formula that creates enormous uncertainty for health care providers and patients and also toward continuing the reform of our health care system,” said Ranking Member Levin. “The framework builds off the tremendous work of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Rep. Allyson Schwartz, further emphasizing value over volume and innovative delivery systems within Medicare.” Summary of the SGR Problem: The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula – the mechanism that ties physician payment updates to the relationship between overall fee schedule spending and growth in gross domestic product (GDP) – is fundamentally broken.  Although originally introduced as a mechanism to contain the growth in spending on physician services, a decade of short-term “patches” has frustrated providers, threatened access for beneficiaries, and created a budgetary dilemma from which Congress has struggled to emerge.  Unless Congress acts by January 1, 2014 physician payments will be cut by approximately 24.4 percent.  Over the last decade, Congress has spent nearly $150 billion on short-term SGR overrides to prevent pending cuts.  The 113th Congress has brought renewed commitment to repealing and replacing the flawed SGR update mechanism.  This effort has been helped by the significantly reduced Congressional Budget Office score for a freeze of physician payments over the next ten years ($139 billion) and the bipartisan proposal reported out by the House Energy & Commerce Committee in July.  Building on that effort, this bipartisan, bicameral discussion draft from the Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committees seeks to move away from the current volume-based payment system to one that rewards quality, efficiency, and innovation. Key points on the SGR discussion draft. It would: Repeal the flawed SGR mechanism, ensures payment stability for physicians, and ensures beneficiaries retain access to their physicians Improve the physician payment system to reward value over volume, ensuring beneficiaries and taxpayers receive value for the money spent Advance delivery system reforms and aligns public-private sector efforts Improve the accuracy of payments for physician services   Incorporate physician and stakeholder expertise  Utilize physician-developed guidelines to avoid provision of unnecessary services Reduce administrative burden on providers by aligning current physician quality programs Provide timely feedback data to physicians and makes more Medicare data publicly available      Summary of Discussion Draft: The framework would permanently repeal the SGR update mechanism, reform the fee-for-service (FFS) payment system through greater focus on value over volume, and encourage participation in alternative payment models (APM), such as accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes.  The revised FFS system would freeze current payment levels through the ten-year budget window, while allowing individual physicians and other health care professionals (subsequently referred to collectively as “professionals”) to earn performance-based incentive payments through a compulsory budget-neutral program.  By combining the current quality incentive programs into one comprehensive program, this framework would further value-based purchasing within the overall Medicare program while maintaining and improving the efficiency of the underlying structure with which professionals are already familiar.  Professionals who receive a significant portion of their revenue from an APM(s) that involves two-sided financial risk and a quality measurement component (referred to as an “advanced APM”) would be exempted from the performance-based incentive program, and would instead receive a bonus payment starting in 2016.  By providing funding for measure development priorities for professionals, the framework would address the current gaps in quality measurement programs and ensure meaningful measures on which to assess professionals. The framework would encourage care management services for individuals with complex chronic care needs through the development of new payment codes for such services, as well as leverage physician-developed standard of care guidelines to avoid the unnecessary provision of services.  It would also improve the accuracy of the physician fee schedule by setting a target for correcting misvalued services and allow for the collection of information on resources used in furnishing services.  Recognizing the role of quality and resource use data in helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions and helping professionals improve their performance, the framework would expand the data available to qualified entities (QEs) for quality improvement activities as well as the information available on the Physician Compare website.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=38b18368-a3a3-4c21-bbdc-978396f7338d,Working Families Flexibility Act,2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The “Working Families Flexibility Act” helps workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by allowing private-sector employers to offer all individuals who work overtime to choose between monetary compensation or comp-time.  Particularly for families, the law would help alleviate the difficulties of juggling work, home, kids, and community.    How It Works Gives employers the ability to offer their employees the option of comp time or overtime pay, both accrued at 1½ times the overtime hours worked. Requires employers who decide to offer this option to their employees to establish a written agreement with the employee outlining the options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his needs. Requires that comp time agreements be included in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer for any employee represented by a union. Allows employees who choose to accrue comp time to accrue up to 160 hours each year. Allows employees to “cash out” their accrued comp time at the traditional overtime pay rate at any time throughout the year. Maintains all existing employee protections, including the current 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual, and provides additional safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time is voluntary. Requires employers to pay employees at the traditional overtime rate for any unused comp time at the end of each calendar year.   What It Does Ends the unfair discrimination against private-sector employees Enables parents to better balance work and family obligations Frees all workers to choose which commodity – time or money – is the more important resource at a given time Lessens the burden of unnecessary federal regulation",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=88afe9d6-83ad-4d78-a3dd-192e04d59779,Utah Honor Flight Veterans Visit DC,2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"I was privileged to welcome several dozen veterans from Utah and their family members to DC, who were participating in an Honor Flight visit to our national memorials.  I am deeply grateful for their service to our country and for the sacrifices they made to protect our freedom and way of life.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=70da23d4-5beb-40da-a53a-88d8a6665ece,Lee Introduces Comp-Time Bill to Help Working Families,2013-10-31,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a bill to help workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by allowing all individuals who work overtime to choose between monetary compensation or comp-time. The “Working Family Flexibility Act” would free workers to choose the best way to alleviate the difficulties of juggling work, home, kids, and community.  Sen. Lee’s bill is a companion to legislation first introduced by Rep. Martha Roby (AL) in the House.“For many families, especially with young children, their most precious commodity is time,” said Sen. Lee. “But today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. For decades, Congress has given a special exemption from these laws to government employees. This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available to government employees should be available to private-sector workers, as well.” “I am excited about the Working Families Flexibility Act gaining traction in the Senate, and I appreciate Sen. Mike Lee stepping forward to introduce a companion bill,” said Rep. Roby. “Talk to any working mom and dad and they’ll tell you they need more time – just one more hour in the day to make life work.  We can’t legislate another hour in the day, but we can help working people better balance the demands of family and work by removing an unnecessary federal restriction on utilizing comp time in the private sector.” Rep. Roby’s “Working Families Flexibility Act”, H.R. 1406, passed the House of Representatives in May. Sen. Lee’s bill is cosponsored by Sens. Coburn, Cruz, Hatch, Johnson, Paul, Risch, Roberts, and Rubio. More Information: How It Works Gives employers the ability to offer their employees the option of comp time or overtime pay, both accrued at 1½ times the overtime hours worked. Requires employers who decide to offer this option to their employees to establish a written agreement with the employee outlining the options and to allow each employee to voluntarily choose the option that best fits his needs. Requires that comp time agreements be included in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and the employer for any employee represented by a union. Allows employees who choose to accrue comp time to accrue up to 160 hours each year. Allows employees to “cash out” their accrued comp time at the traditional overtime pay rate at any time throughout the year. Maintains all existing employee protections, including the current 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual, and provides additional safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time is voluntary. Requires employers to pay employees at the traditional overtime rate for any unused comp time at the end of each calendar year.   What It Does Ends the unfair discrimination against private-sector employees Enables parents to better balance work and family obligations Frees all workers to choose which commodity – time or money – is the more important resource at a given time Lessens the burden of unnecessary federal regulation You can learn more about the Working Family Flexibility Act and add your voice to the discussion of this proposal here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/working-family-flexibility",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-and-staff-enter-obamacare-exchanges,Chaffetz and Staff to Enter Obamacare Exchanges,2013-10-30,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"The press release you requested is no longer available. Please see below for a complete list of House vacancy details. 115th Congress, 1st Session State, District Reason for Vacancy, Successor Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6f22f0c5-aa23-47ce-9f30-7d0bfb15491a,Hatch Introduces Legislation to Combat Patent Trolls,2013-10-30,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today introduced legislation to address the growing threat of so-called “patent trolls.” Patent trolls purchase existing broad patents and then threaten businesses of infringing on those patents, in search of a financial settlement or litigation. Hatch’s legislation, the Patent Litigation Integrity Act (S. 1612), gives judges more opportunity to shift the costs and expenses of litigation, and gives defendants the opportunity to request a bond up front to prove the party seeking a claim on the patent has the adequate resources to turn over to the prevailing party if that party is successful in defending its claim. “Patent trolls are a drain on the innovation in our country and their practices need to end,” Hatch said. “Many small businesses in Utah and throughout the country simply don’t have the resources to fight back against the predators in our patent system, and my bill gives them adequate resources to fight back. Fee shifting without the option to seek a bond is like writing a check on an empty account, and that’s why it’s important to include both in any legislation dealing with patent trolls. It’s my hope the Senate will act soon to put a stop to the patent trolls draining the innovation in our country and weakening our economy.” A one-page summary of S.1612 can be found HERE.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=2f4f7c4d-dc0e-4740-afe3-d368831e94ab,Lee Introduces Family Fairness Tax Reform Plan,2013-10-30,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today Senator Mike Lee introduced a tax reform plan that would replace much of today’s complex tax system with a new, simple structure that provides solutions for America’s ongoing opportunity crisis and ends the discrimination of parents in the tax code.  The Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act is a pro-family, pro-growth plan that incentivizes social mobility, promotes middle-class economic security, and improves opportunity for all Americans. “If there is any single group of people in the entire country whose equal opportunity to pursue happiness we should make sure to protect, it is our ultimate entrepreneurial and investor class: America’s moms and dads,” said Sen. Lee. “The family has emerged as perhaps the most important institution in our economy.  It is an incubator of economic opportunity, an indicator of economic success, and grows more economically important every day.” “The current tax code singles out parents of young children for unfair and extremely expensive discrimination. It is what I call the ‘parent tax penalty,’ a glitch in the federal tax code that forces parents to contribute to senior entitlement programs not once, but twice.  My plan levels the playing field to treat all taxpayers more equally. For a middle-class family, this is an immediate, potentially life-changing reform.” Under this plan, a married couple with two children making the median national income of $51,000 would see a tax cut of approximately $5,000 per year. “In short, the Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act would restore opportunities to working parents and their children to pursue happiness that right now federal policy unfairly denies them,” Lee added.   Praise for Senator Lee’s Tax Reform Proposal Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush:“Senator Mike Lee and others here are proposing incredibly sound policies to provide incentives for child rearing families to give them the kind of support that they need through our tax code.” National Review Editorial Board: “Senator Mike Lee, the Utah conservative, announced an ambitious plan to reform taxes — much the most attractive one we have heard from any Republican for a long time.” Reihan Salam: “[The Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act] represents genuinely new thinking about how Republicans ought to approach domestic policy… [I]t will represent a substantial tax cut for middle-income families with children”. Josh Barro: “Lee is out with a new tax plan that's much better and actually addresses the needs of the middle class.” Ramesh Ponnuru: “Republican economic rhetoric has tended to overemphasize commercial individualism…That critique has some force. But it has less force now that Lee, who is clearly a conservative, is shifting his party's priorities on taxes toward the middle class.” Encouraged by @SenMikeLee's policy entrepreneurship to promote upward mobility and economic security: http://t.co/qjnbeYiwlE — Paul Ryan (@PRyan) October 29, 2013 More Information: How it Works Establishes two individual income tax rates: 15% on all income up to $87,850 – and twice that amount for married couples - and 35% on all income above that; Offsets the parent tax penalty by providing an additional $2,500-per child tax credit, available to all parents of dependent children and applicable to payroll taxes as well as income taxes; A $2,000 personal credit to offset the removal of the 10% bracket and the personal exemption; A new charitable deduction that would be available to all taxpayers, not just current itemizers; A new mortgage interest deduction, also available to all home-owners, but capped at $300,000 worth of principal; Eliminates special interest loopholes Repeals Obamacare taxes and the AMT Eliminates the state and local deduction Revenue expected to be 16-20% of GDP   What it Does Simplifies the tax code and lowers the top marginal rate Eliminates an unfair and dysfunctional double standard Vastly improves the economic security of middle-class Americans Equalizes a system that is rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected Provides substantial tax relief for most Americans Creates pro-growth incentives to encourage new jobs and investment Focuses deductions on the families and communities who need it most Responds to the inequality crisis facing the country today Consistent with conservative reform principles",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=adcf6bcc-67ce-4c47-9cfc-179d9ac99770,Hatch Joins Efforts To Delay Obamacare Until Health Law's Websites Are Functional,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, has cosponsored legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) today that will delay the individual mandate under ObamaCare until six months after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies that the exchange website is fully functional. “The rollout of the Obamacare exchanges has been nothing short of a disaster,” Hatch said. “Republicans have warned that the Obamacare exchanges weren’t ready for prime time, and this legislation is a common-sense step forward while the mess with the exchanges is straightened out. The Administration is now saying the law’s websites won’t be ready until Thanksgiving, which means that Utah families and Americans everywhere will have only a few weeks to make an extremely complicate decision of picking the best health care plan that matches their needs. Delaying the mandate just makes sense, and if Democrats are truly interested in working to address the American people's concerns they’ll support this bill.” The “Delay Until Fully Functional Act” would delay the ObamaCare individual mandate and require that GAO study and report to Congress on the websites within 30 days. If the GAO study says the American Health Benefit Exchange is not fully functional and operating in a manner consistent with the role envisioned for exchanges under this act, GAO will do subsequent studies and reports every 60 days until the Comptroller General determines that the exchanges are fully functional. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) inspector general would then issue a certification based on the results of the GAO report. The individual mandate would be reinstated 6 months after the HHS inspector general certification. The full text of the bill is available here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ec4613a6-d76d-4a81-87e0-d23ee6e0de64,Hatch on Debt Limit Resolution of Disapproval,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In a speech on the Senate floor today, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) reiterated the need for concrete, structural reforms to the nation’s entitlement programs a means of reducing the debt and urged his colleagues to join him in supporting S. J. Res. 26, a resolution to disapprove of the President’s exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit. The Senate is slated to vote on the measure later today. “The debt limit debate provides us with an opportunity to reexamine our nation’s fiscal course and take steps to correct it,” said Hatch. “Sadly, we have a President who appears unwilling to have that conversation.  Instead, he apparently wants to press forward full steam ahead on our already unsustainable course, saddling future generations with unheard of debts and broken entitlement promises in the process.” Hatch continued, “Quite simply, it would be folly to approve of yet another debt limit increase without also working to address these programs, which are the main drivers of our debts and deficits.  Therefore, I disapprove of the President’s exercise of an authority to suspend the debt limit, and I urge all of my colleagues to similarly disapprove.” Earlier this year, Hatch introduced five bipartisan reform ideas that he has presented to President Obama, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.  Below is the text of Hatch’s full speech delivered on the Senate floor today: Mr. President, during debate over a debt limit increase in 2006, then-Senator Obama stated that: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Leadership, he said: “means the buck stops here.  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.  Americans deserve better.” Mr. President, at that time, our gross debt was $8.3 trillion.  It is now well above twice that, currently standing at $17.1 trillion, which is over 100 percent of the size of our economy. During that same 2006 debt limit debate, then-Senator Biden said: “My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more.  It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.” Mr. President, things have certainly changed since 2006.  Now President Obama and Vice President Biden preside over an administration that tells us that raising the debt limit is merely a matter of paying our bills and is a reflection of decisions made in Congress.   Yet, while it is ostensibly true that Congress has the power to raise the debt limit, it is not true that Congress makes spending decisions unilaterally, with no role being played by the Executive Branch.  No amount of spending can be enacted without the President signing it into law. In addition, the President submits a budget every year.  The White House also issues policy statements and veto threats on spending bills on a more or less frequent basis.  And, of course, every administration works with Congress to enact its domestic agenda, which inherently includes setting priorities in federal spending.  So, in short, the commonly repeated notion that questions surrounding spending and the debt limit are Congress’s and Congress’s alone to answer is simply an attempt by this administration to avoid accountability on these issues.  Ultimately, regardless of what President Obama and those in his administration are saying now, both Congress and Executive Branch are to blame for our current predicament.   Let’s take a look at that predicament for a moment, Mr. President.  The President has exercised his authority to suspend the debt limit under the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014, which he signed into law on October 17. On October 16, public debt subject to the limit was around $16.7 trillion. On October 17, the very next day, public debt subject to the limit was over $17 trillion. In one day, Treasury increased the debt subject to the limit by over $328 billion. Mr. President, let me repeat that: the debt increased by over $328 billion in a single day. That brings the increase in total public debt under this administration to more than $6.4 trillion, an amount that is, by all accounts, unprecedented. Echoing earlier sentiments of the then-Senator Biden, I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point. The debt limit debate provides us with an opportunity to reexamine our nation’s fiscal course and take steps to correct it.  Sadly, we have a President who appears unwilling to have that conversation.  Instead, he apparently wants to press forward full steam ahead on our already unsustainable course, saddling future generations with unheard of debts and broken entitlement promises in the process.               Unfortunately, as the Congressional Budget Office has made clear, over the course of President Obama’s administration, the federal government has recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing our debt to soar.  Federal debt as a percent of the economy’s annual output is higher than at any point in U.S. history except for a brief period around World War II. CBO makes three other things equally clear: 1) our debt path is unsustainable, threating our economy and putting us at risk of a fiscal crisis; 2) the root of our fiscal problem is federal spending, not a lack of revenue; and 3) the main source of our spending problem is our unsustainable entitlement programs. That being the case, Mr. President, any serious talk about raising the debt limit must include a real, concrete discussion about entitlement reform.  As every credible analyst will tell you, we need to face the fiscal facts and enact serious, structural reforms to our entitlement programs.  So far, President Obama has been unwilling to even engage in this discussion.  These days, every fiscal discussion with the White House begins and ends with demands for additional tax hikes to fuel even more spending.  Of course, the President will occasionally resurrect offers he’s made in past failed fiscal negotiations to entertain small entitlement changes, including, for example, movement to a different price index for certain cost-of-living adjustments. But, at the same time, the President and his administration have made clear that even those small entitlement changes will only be on the table if tax hikes are delivered first. That is the President’s precondition for even entertaining tax reform or entitlement reform, even on the heels of a more than $630 billion tax hike at the beginning this year and another $1 trillion in revenue delivered courtesy of Obamacare. Mr. President, entitlement reform is not an option, it is a necessity.  Structural reforms to our health care entitlements should not hinge on another tax-and-spend operation. And, structural reforms to Social Security should not be held hostage to another tax hike. Earlier this year, I personally presented to the President, in detail and in writing, five reform proposals relating to Medicare and Medicaid that have received bipartisan support in the past.  I asked him to consider the proposals and have since asked members of his administration to likewise give the proposals consideration.    I did not wait until an impending debt limit debate.  Rather, I put my proposals forward in a good faith effort to begin timely discussions.  Unfortunately, thus far I’ve not received a response.  And, the clock on Medicare and Medicaid keeps ticking. The situation with Social Security isn’t much better.  The Trustees of the trust funds embedded in the Social Security system, including top administration officials such as the Treasury Secretary, have, in no uncertain terms, urged Congress to act quickly on reforming the retirement and the disability insurance programs to move them toward sustainability.  Quite simply, it would be folly to approve of yet another debt limit increase without also working to address these programs, which are the main drivers of our debts and deficits.  Therefore, I disapprove of the President’s exercise of an authority to suspend the debt limit, and I urge all of my colleagues to similarly disapprove.  Mr. President, the recent debt limit impasse and the impasse of 2011 also provided a good deal of information about lack of accountability of the Treasury Department and of our regulatory agencies. I currently serve as the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight responsibility toward the Treasury Department.  To fulfill those responsibilities, I have been asking questions of Treasury about debt and cash management procedures.  And, I have repeatedly been stonewalled.  For example, when we have approached the debt limit, I have asked questions about how much cash our nation has in the till, only to find that Treasury won’t tell me and that they prefer that Congress rely on estimates from think tanks and Wall Street firms. Furthermore, during the most recent debt limit impasses, administration officials were busy frightening seniors, our troops, and financial market participants about whether or not they would be paid in the event that Treasury were to run out of cash. Officials also identified threats of massive financial instability stemming from a breach of the debt limit, and of potential disruptions from a downgrade of the rating on U.S. government securities. So, naturally, I asked Treasury and, in fact, every voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council—or FSOC - to provide Congress and the American people information regarding the plans they had in place to respond to such catastrophes.  Mr. President, out of close to 20 letters that I sent to FSOC members, I received only two responses.  Apparently, the FSOC, which was empowered by the so-called Dodd-Frank Act to monitor and respond to emerging threats to financial stability, does not identify or share response plans with respect to any threat that could emerge as a result of government policies. That being the case, I believe that we should strip the FSOC of any notional oversight of financial stability and call it what it really is: another unrestrained executive agency created only to enact additional regulations.  After the fact, we have found out that Treasury and some financial regulators had plans for how to respond to a debt limit breach or a ratings downgrade.  Yet, none of these plans were shared with Congress.   Mr.  President, put simply, if we’re going to empower a federal regulatory body like the FSOC to develop contingency plans to respond to threats to financial stability, then that body should be required to share those plans with the American people.  Sadly, thus far, that hasn’t been the case.  Another thing I have learned from our recent debt limit impasses is that we need to take a closer look at Treasury Department’s use of so-called extraordinary measures, which have become all too ordinary.   These “extraordinary measures” are merely ways for the Treasury Department to temporarily delay facing a debt limit increase by issuing shadow debt.  For example, Treasury can simply declare a debt issuance suspension period and stop issuing debt that it normally would issue while, instead, effectively telling the lender: don’t worry, I’ll pay you back later with interest.  I believe that authority to use these types of extraordinary measures needs to be reexamined. As you can see, Mr. President, there are a number of problems that need to be confronted with regard to our nation’s ever-growing debt. Like I said, we need to work together to address our nation’s unsustainable entitlement programs.  Otherwise, any effort to rein in our debts and deficits will amount to little more than tinkering around the edges.  In addition, we need to improve information sharing between Congress and the Executive Branch on issues relating to our debt.  The Treasury Department and our financial regulators have a lot to do with maintaining the depth, liquidity, and efficiency of the market for Treasury securities.  And, Congress has a duty to exercise oversight over these functions.  Unfortunately, the administration, far more often than not, opts to keep Congress in the dark on these issues. This has to stop.  Mr. President, by using his authority to suspend the debt limit through February 7, 2014, President Obama has opted not to confront any of these serious issues.  Instead, he’s leading us even further down a path that we all already know is unsustainable.             That being the case, I plan to vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval of this debt limit suspension and I urge my colleagues to do the same.   I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f4565444-ef7a-4ca6-bc36-37801820a3eb,Hatch: Obamacare Woes Bigger Than a Tech Problem,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today slammed the President’s health law, saying it would be a “huge mistake to simply write off the problems with ObamaCare as a simple IT problem.” During a speech on the Senate floor, Hatch again called for the delay of the flawed health law that is now forcing millions of Americans to lose their existing health insurance coverage. “The healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and the President is right to recognize it as such.  But, it would be a huge mistake to simply write off the problems with Obamacare as a simple IT problem,” said Hatch. “My own position on Obamacare is very clear.  I support repealing the law in its entirety. As more and more Americans lose their health coverage – coverage they shopped for and liked – and face outlandish costs as a result of the law, I believe that position will eventually be vindicated.” “But, in the meantime, I think we can all agree that the law is simply not ready for prime time and that, at the very least, it should be delayed so that we can protect the American people from further harm.  I’ve made this call before and I’m sure I’ll make it again,” Hatch concluded. A staunch opponent of the President’s health law, Hatch has introduced legislation that would repeal the two central pillars of the Affordable Care Act, the employer and individual mandates, and has bipartisan legislation repealing the medical device tax that partially funds the law. This Fall,  Hatch introduced the Trust But Verify Act, to delay the launch of the exchanges, where people will buy their Washington-mandated insurance, until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can certify that the Data Hubs, the online market place to buy insurance is secure. Below is the text of Hatch’s full speech delivered on the Senate floor today: Mr. President, here in Washington and, indeed, throughout the country, everyone is talking about the Obamacare website.  No doubt, that is a serious concern. The healthcare.gov website has been, to put it bluntly, a debacle.  I don’t know of a single member of Congress – Democrat or Republican – who would say otherwise.  That said, we need to be clear about something: the problems with Obamacare go much deeper than a faulty website.  Sure, the administration would have the American people believe that the problems with this law are simply technical in nature and that, once they bring in technical experts to fix the website, all will be right with world. But, let’s not kid ourselves.  The problems with Obamacare are fundamental and systemic. The administration may very well get the website up and running in the next few weeks.  But, that won’t fix the health care law.  I’d like to take just a few minutes today to talk about some of the problems facing Obamacare that have nothing to do with the website.  When he was trying to get the law passed, President Obama repeatedly promised Americans that “if you like your current health plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”  This promise was central to the President’s efforts to sell Obamacare to the American people.  And, as it turns out, it was all a lie.  Now, even the White House admits that millions of Americans will not be able to keep their health plan under the law.  And, if recent news reports are to be believed, they’ve known this for years.  Experts have predicted that as many as 16 million Americans may lose their existing coverage due to Obamacare’s new requirements.  And, according to a NBC News story from yesterday, the Obama Administration has known about this for at least three years. Consumers throughout the country are already receiving cancellation letters from their insurance providers.  For example, in New Jersey, 800,000 individuals are being dropped from their existing plans.  Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people informing them their current coverage will end.  And, Florida Blue is ending policies of 300,000 customers due to Obamacare. This isn’t some unforeseen or unintended consequence of the law.  On the contrary, it is precisely what was intended when the law was put into place. As you know, Mr. President, the President’s health care law includes a mountain of new mandates and requirements for health insurance plans.  Any plans that fail to meet those onerous requirements are invalidated under the law. True enough, the law provides that plans that were in effect as of March 2010 will be grandfathered in, allowing consumers who prefer to keep those policies to do so even if the plans don’t meet the law’s requirements.  However, the Department of Health and Human Services has, through regulations, all but eliminated the protections enjoyed by those in existing plans by saying that the grandfathering provision does not apply to plans that have undergone any changes – even small changes to deductibles or copayments – since 2010.  Under this requirement, many of plans that were in place before passage of Obamacare – particularly those in the individual health insurance market – will fail to pass muster. That is why we’re seeing hundreds of thousands of Americans being dropped from their current insurance plans and why the same fate is certain to befall millions more.  Like I said, Mr. President, the Obama Administration knew about these problems a long time ago.  In fact, regulations issued in July 2010 estimated that, because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, 40 to 67 percent of consumers will not be able to keep their policy. Let me repeat that: the administration knew in July 2010 that at least 40 to 67 percent of consumers in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans in place. Yet, the President never took back his promise: “If you like your current health plan, you’ll be able to keep it.” This, quite frankly, is preposterous.  The response we’re getting from the administration is that, sure, many people will lose their existing health insurance, but it will be replaced by better, cheaper options. This claim is also at odds with the facts. For many people, health expenses will increase under the new plans as a result of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays.  One study from the Manhattan Institute found that individual market premiums will increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide.    For others, the new plans may not cover visits to their current doctor or the hospital they’ve used in the past.  That’s because insurers are reducing the number of doctors and hospitals covered by plans in the exchanges in order to reduce premium prices.  These changes are a direct result of Obamacare’s new requirements and mandates. I have received letters from my constituents all over Utah who are scared, who are angry, and who are confused about the changes they’re facing. For example, Brenton in Provo, Utah currently has a high deductible plan and uses a Health Savings Account.  This arrangement works well for Brenton and his family, and they would like to keep it.  Unfortunately, Brenton’s plan has been canceled due to Obamacare.  And, the plan he will be required to purchase is more expensive and includes coverage he doesn’t want.  There is also Kathy in Salt Lake City, who wrote to tell me her deductible will increase from $3000 to $5000, her copays for doctor visits will increase to 30 percent, and her copays for prescription drugs will increase to 50 percent.  Kathy let me know that as a result of these changes, her health care expenses will now be higher than her income. Even those who were in favor of the law are now finding that it is not being implemented as they expected.  A recent LA Times article profiled a young woman who was shocked by the 50 percent rate hike she received as a result of the health care law.  She was quoted as saying, “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.” That’s a refrain I think we’ll be hearing from a number of people who supported “health care reform.”  Increased costs aren’t the only problem that consumers will be facing under Obamacare.  There are other serious, more subtle problems that have yet to be addressed. For example, some consumers may have their personal information compromised by an Obamacare Navigator or by submitting an application through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace, the Federal Data Services Hub, or one of the Affordable Care Act call centers. Social Security numbers, employment information, birth dates, health records, and tax returns are among the personal data that will be transmitted to this Data Hub, resulting in an unprecedented amount of information being collected in one place by a government entity.  Every piece of information someone would need to steal an individual’s identity or access their confidential credit information would be available at the fingertips of a skilled hacker, providing a goldmine for data thieves and a staggering security threat to consumers.  The entire system, including the Data Hub, a new information-sharing network that allows state and federal agencies to verify this information, has not gone under any independent review to determine if the data that is entered is secure.  This means that individuals’ personal and financial records may be at serious risk of becoming available to data thieves.  I’ve already been to the floor several times to discuss these issues.  I’m here again today because, as of yet, there has been no solution.  In fact, the Obamacare exchanges are less than a month old and data breaches are already occurring at the state level.  A recent CBS News story featured a Minnesota insurance broker who was looking for information about assisting with Obamacare implementation.  Instead what landed in his inbox last month was a document filled with the names, Social Security numbers, and other pieces of personal information belonging to his fellow Minnesotans. In one of the first breaches of the new Obamacare online marketplaces, an employee of the Minnesota marketplace, called MNsure, accidentally emailed him a document containing personally identifying information for more than 2,400 insurance agents.  While the incident was resolved, the broker said it raised serious questions for him as to whether those that sign up for MNsure can be confident their data is safe. These types of incidents are only going to increase as time goes on if rigorous testing is not performed to ensure that the Data Hub is sufficiently secure.  Despite assurances by the Chief Technology Officer for the Administration in early September that “we have completed security testing and received certification to operate,” we all now know that, in fact, all the testing had not been completed until just days before the October 1 launch date and that no third party had a chance to review it.  But there is much that we don’t know.  What kind of testing was done?  Who did the testing?  What kinds of things did they look for?  What were the results?  And, perhaps most importantly, what are the risks of using the website? To help get answers to these questions, today, several of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and I are sending a letter to Secretary Sebelius asking detailed questions about the testing protocols, what waivers were received with respect to the testing requirements and any and all results of the limited testing that did occur.  Hopefully that will enable Congress and the American people to better understand exactly what is broken with the system and help to ensure it does not happen again. These questions and problems demonstrate why it is imperative that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) independently verify that sufficient privacy and security controls are in place for the Data Hub and the entire Federal Marketplace so that Congress has independent assurance that the necessary controls exist and that taxpayers know their personal information is secure.  That is why I introduced S. 1525, the Trust But Verify Act, which calls on the GAO to conduct such a review and delays implementation of the exchanges until the review is completed.  The bill currently has 32 Senate cosponsors.  As you can see, Mr. President, the problems with Obamacare are numerous and fundamental.  Like I’ve said before, this law was bad policy when we debated it.  It was bad policy when the Democrats forced it through Congress.  And, it remains bad policy today. I have little doubt that the administration can eventually get the website up and running.  They would have us believe that, once that that task is accomplished, everything will be fine. But, that is simply not the case.              They can’t say that everything will be fine when millions of Americans are losing their existing health coverage as a direct result of the health care law.             They can’t say that everything will be fine when health care costs are continuing to skyrocket even though the President claimed that his health law would bring costs down.              And, they can’t say everything will be fine when consumers’ personal information is at serious risk because the administration didn’t take the proper precautions with its huge new data system.              Like I said, Mr. President, the healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and the President is right to recognize it as such.  But, it would be a huge mistake to simply write off the problems with Obamacare as a simple IT problem.              My own position on Obamacare is very clear.  I support repealing the law in its entirety.             As more and more Americans lose their health coverage – coverage they shopped for and liked – and face outlandish costs as a result of the law, I believe that position will eventually be vindicated.             But, in the meantime, I think we can all agree that the law is simply not ready for prime time and that, at the very least, it should be delayed so that we can protect the American people from further harm.              I’ve made this call before and I’m sure I’ll make it again.  Today, with all the new information we’ve received – the broken website, the security problems, the skyrocketing costs, and the millions of Americans losing existing coverage – I would hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will begin to see the light on this. I would hope that they will finally see what happens when one party tries to take on something as vast and complicated as our health care system all on its own.  And, I would hope that they will work with us to come up with real solutions to our nation’s health care problems.  I’ll keep waiting, Mr. President.  And, if the problems we’ve seen in the last few weeks are any indication, I shouldn’t have to wait too much longer.   I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f5e42641-9f64-48db-b913-e98cd549aae4,"Senators Ask Secretary Sebelius Whether Privacy, Security Standards Met For Obamacare Website",2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today the eleven Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee, led by Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), wrote to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking whether all federal privacy and security standards were met prior to the launch of HealthCare.gov, the website to sign up for ObamaCare.  In a letter to Secretary Sebelius, the Senators wrote, “[W]e are troubled that day after day more issues arise which illustrate that the website was simply not ready to launch on October 1.  While we recognize that the website’s operational issues are being worked on and will likely be resolved eventually, serious questions remain as to the privacy and security of the very detailed personal information being transmitted through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and what testing, if any, occurred or is occurring to ensure that information is secure.” The Senators asked Sebelius to provide answers and information to a series of questions detailing what level of security and privacy measures were undertaken prior to the launch of the website to safeguard the privacy of those Americans signing up for coverage through healthCare.gov.    Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) joined Hatch in sending the letter today. The letter to the Secretary is below and can be found HERE:    The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 Dear Secretary Sebelius: As Members of the Committee on Finance (Committee), which has jurisdiction over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), we are seeking information about the various types of testing which were utilized to ensure that the healthcare.gov website and underlying system (hereinafter collectively referred to as “website”) met all Federal privacy and security standards before going live on October 1, 2013. Additionally, we are requesting detailed information about security threats received since the website launch, as well as measures taken by your agency and contractors to ensure website security. The Administration’s Chief Technology Officer, Todd Park, publicly stated on September 11, 2013, that “after over two years of work, it [healthcare.gov] is built and ready for operation, and we have completed security testing and certification to operate.”[1] Despite these and other assurances, we are troubled that day after day more issues arise which illustrate that the website was simply not ready to launch on October 1.  While we recognize that the website’s operational issues are being worked on and will likely be resolved eventually, serious questions remain as to the privacy and security of the very detailed personal information being transmitted through the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) and what testing, if any, occurred or is occurring to ensure that information is secure. It is our understanding that each Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) system is required by law to obtain an Authority to Operate (ATO) certification that attests the system has met all testing requirements before it is placed into operation.  CMS’ own internal procedures require that “. . . security controls be operational, effective, managed, and continuously monitored.  Controls must meet mandatory requirements, as defined in the current CMS Information Security Acceptable Risk Safeguards (ARS) CMS Minimum Security Requirements (CMSR).”[2]  Additionally, as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), you are responsible for ensuring that your agency’s information systems, including the website, fully comply with security requirements imposed by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).[3]  The website must also comply with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) implementing policies including Appendix III of OMB circular A-130, and guidance and standards from the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. To help us better understand how CMS ensured that these and other standards were met, please provide us with the following information: Describe in detail the security testing that was completed on all aspects of the healthcare.gov website before October 1, 2013.  Please include copies of all testing certification or other documents that indicate the results of all testing that occurred. Please provide all timelines, dashboards or other tracking mechanisms developed to track the testing requirements. Was CMS/HHS granted a Privacy Act exemption by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the website or any related applications?  If so, please provide documentation for the exemption. Were any other security testing exemptions granted for the website or any related applications by OMB?  If so, please provide all supporting documentation. Was all testing completed to meet the standards set forth by the FISMA?  Please provide copies of all testing results and certifications that show all FISMA standards were met. Was a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) completed by CMS prior to the website going live?  If so, please provide a copy of the PIA. Are reports generated on a regular basis regarding the security of the website and its related applications?  How often are reports generated and what office (and whom) within CMS received those reports? What alerts are generated if an outside entity attempts to inappropriately gain access to sensitive information submitted to the website?  Since October 1, 2013, how many times has an outside entity attempted to inappropriately or unlawfully gain access to sensitive information? Have any of these attempts been successful? Provide a log of all alerts, or whatever method of tracking is used to track alerts, as well as the outcome of each alert (i.e., attempt was successful, not successful, etc.). Which contractors have access to user data submitted to the website? How many employees at each contractor have access to this data? Provide names of the contractors that are responsible for staffing and operating all call centers associated with the website. With respect to each contractor retained by CMS to work on the website or the call center: What measures are in place to ensure that these contractors appropriately secure data? What training have these employees completed regarding how to handle sensitive data? To date, have there been any instances when contractors have inappropriately disclosed or used data? If so, what steps has CMS taken against the contractor and/or the employee? What security clearance is required for contractor employees who handle personally identifiable information (PII)? Have all contractor employees been cleared to handle PII?  If not, when does CMS anticipate that all employees will be cleared? If any contractor employees are working with only a temporary clearance, what additional steps has CMS taken to ensure that these employees do not improperly disclose sensitive data? To your knowledge, have there been any improper disclosures of PII submitted by users of the website or the call center?  If so, explain the circumstances and CMS’ reaction. In the event that the website becomes no longer functional or suffers a loss of PII, does CMS have a disaster recovery plan?  If so, please provide a copy of the plan. Wherever possible, please provide the information requested in electronic format.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this request and we respectfully request receiving all information by no later than December 3, 2013.  Sincerely, [1] http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-11/obamacare-computer-network-completes-security-tests-u-dot-s-dot-says. [2] CMS Risk Management Handbook, Volume II, Procedure 7.8, August 17, 2012 (Document Number: CMS-CISO-2012-vII-pr7.8).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=ff8b0792-6805-455d-a886-ec544bd6c15e,The Need for a Conservative Reform Agenda,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Mike Lee delivered the following speech at The Heritage Foundation as he introduced four legislative proposals that are part of a larger conservative reform agenda: Whats Next For Conservatives",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=29547372-2514-4890-a102-f75656a424b4,Excerpts from Lee’s Speech on a New Conservative Reform Agenda,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) will give a speech at the Heritage Foundation at 2:30 pm EST on the way forward for conservatives and the need for a new conservative reform agenda.   The following are selected excerpts from the speech: “The ideas that defined and propelled the Reagan Revolution did not come down from a mountain etched in stone tablets. They were forged in an open, roiling, diverse debate about how conservatism could truly meet the challenges of that day. That debate invited all conservatives and as we know, elevated the best… Together, that generation of conservatives transformed a movement that was anti-statist, anti-communist, and anti-establishment, and made it pro-reform. Contrary to the establishment’s complaints, conservatives in the late 1970s did not start a “civil war.” They started a (mostly) civil debate. Because of that confident and deeply conservative choice – to argue rather than quarrel, to persuade rather than simply purge - the vanguards of the establishment never knew what hit them.  The bottom line was that in 1976, the conservative movement found a leader for the ages, yet it still failed.  By 1980, the movement had forged an agenda for its time and only then did it succeed.” … “It’s time for another Great Debate, and we should welcome all input. Grassroots and establishment. Conservatives and moderates. Libertarians and traditionalists. Interventionists and non-interventionists. Economic conservatives and social conservatives. All are part of our movement, and all are vital to our success – so all should be welcome in this debate. There are still nearly three years before Republicans will have a chance to select a new, unifying conservative leader. But together we can start debating and developing a new, unifying conservative agenda right now.” … “I submit that the great challenge of our generation is America’s growing crisis of stagnation and sclerosis  - a crisis that comes down to a shortage of opportunities.  This opportunity crisis presents itself in three principal ways: immobility among the poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, where families just can’t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top, where political and economic elites unfairly profit at everyone else’s expense. The Republican Party should tackle these three crises head on.” … “To do my part, today I want to talk about four pieces of legislation specifically designed to address four leading challenges facing middle-class families today: the cost of raising children, the difficulties of work-life balance, the time Americans lose away from work and home, stuck in traffic, and the rising costs of and restricted access to quality higher education. These bills won’t solve every problem under the sun. Raising a family isn’t supposed to be easy. But each would restore to working families more of the freedom they deserve to pursue their happiness: to earn a good living and build a good life.” … “Especially in the wake of recent controversies, many conservatives are more frustrated with the establishment than ever before. And we have every reason to be.  But however justified, frustration is not a platform. Anger is not an agenda. And outrage, as a habit, is not even conservative. Outrage, resentment, and intolerance are gargoyles of the Left. For us, optimism is not just a message – it’s a principle. American conservatism, at its core, is about gratitude, and cooperation, and trust, and above all hope. It is also about inclusion. Successful political movements are about identifying converts, not heretics. This, too, is part of the challenge before us.” The full text of the speech can be found below: Whats Next For Conservatives",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=a752e38d-3589-4320-811f-2187636b377c,What's Next for Conservatives,2013-10-29,2013,2013-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Whats Next For Conservatives “What’s Next for Conservatives” Remarks to the Heritage Foundation U.S. Senator Mike Lee October 29, 2013 Thank you very much. It’s wonderful to be back at the Heritage Foundation.It has been quite a month in Washington. It began with our effort to stop Obamacare — a goal that all Republicans share even if we have not always agreed about just how to pursue it. And it is ending with powerful practical proof of just why stopping Obamacare is so essential.  This law is unaffordable and unfair; it’s getting worse all the time. As of today, President Obama’s policy is to fine any American who does not buy a product that his bungled website will not sell them. And they call us unreasonable. Every week, thousands of Americans get letters from their insurance companies, announcing their suspension of coverage, or shocking price increases. Because of Obamacare, Americans are losing their jobs, wages, and hours. And when in July the president exempted big businesses from the hardships of this law, but not ordinary Americans, I felt I had to take a stand.  I am proud of my friend Ted Cruz and the dozens of others – including Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans – who fought Obamacare, continue to fight it, and will not stop fighting it.  But a month like the one we have been through should lead us not only to re-commit to this essential, ongoing struggle, but also to step back and ask ourselves where we should be headed more generally. What do we do next, not only to stop Obamacare but also to advance a larger, positive vision of America, and craft a practical plan to get us there? What’s next for conservatives? That is the question I would like to try to answer today. One of conservatives’ defining virtues is our insistence on learning from history. And to help answer the question, “what’s next?,” I think the most instructive history that conservatives can learn from today is our own. In particular, I refer to the history of the conservative movement and the Republican Party in the late 1970s. There are many things conservatives today should take from that era, including hope and encouragement but also an urgent challenge. Allow me to begin at the beginning.  By 1977, the Republican Party was in disarray. The party establishment had been discredited by political failure and policy debacles, foreign and domestic. A new generation of grassroots conservatives was rising up to challenge the establishment. The culmination of that challenge was Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary campaign against a far-less conservative, establishment incumbent. That campaign failed, of course, and was derided by Washington insiders as a foolish “civil war” that ultimately served only to elect Democrats.  In other words, we have been here before. And of course, we know now that Reagan and the conservative movement were vindicated in 1980. So it is tempting for conservatives today to believe that history is on the verge of repeating itself, that our struggles with the Republican establishment are only a prelude to pre-ordained victory and that our own vindication – our generation’s 1980 - is just around the corner. But there is still a piece missing, a glaring difference between the successful conservative challenge to the Washington establishment in the late 1970s, and our challenge to the establishment today. Much of the difference can be found in what happened between 1976 and 1980 – the hard, heroic work of translating conservatism’s bedrock principles into new and innovative policy reforms. In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk observed that “conservatives inherit from [Edmund] Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time.” That is precisely what the conservatives of the late 1970s did. The ideas that defined and propelled the Reagan Revolution did not come down from a mountain etched in stone tablets, they were forged in an open, roiling, diverse debate about how conservatism could truly meet the challenges of that day. That debate invited all conservatives and as we know, elevated the best. There was Jack Kemp, advancing supply-side economics to combat economic stagnancy.  There were James Buckley and Henry Hyde, taking up the cause of the unborn after Roe v. Wade.  There was Milton Friedman, promoting the practical and moral superiority of free enterprise.  There were Cold Warriors like Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpartrick, challenging the premise of peaceful coexistence and moral equivalence with the Soviets. There were Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, arguing that the “mediating institutions” of civil society protected and promoted human happiness more effectively than big government programs. There were Professors Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, challenging the received wisdom of constitutional interpretation laid down by the Warren Court. There were think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the new Cato Institute, and a flowering of grassroots organizations around the country. And of course, in the middle of it all, there were Paul Weyrich, Ed Fuelner, Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation, specifically founded to chart a new, conservative direction for public policy in America. Together, that generation of conservatives transformed a movement that was anti-statist, anti-communist, and anti-establishment and made it pro-reform. Contrary to the establishment’s complaints, conservatives in the late 1970s did not start a “civil war.” They started a (mostly) civil debate. Because of that confident and deeply conservative choice – to argue rather than quarrel, to persuade rather than simply purge - the vanguards of the establishment never knew what hit them. The bottom line was that in 1976, the conservative movement found a leader for the ages, yet it still failed.  By 1980, the movement had forged an agenda for its time and only then did it succeed. That, my fellow conservatives, is the lesson our generation must take from our movement’s “revolutionary era” – and the enormous and exhilarating challenge it presents to us today. What that generation did – comprehensively re-expressing conservative convictions to fit the time – has not been done since. Conservative activists and intellectuals are still providing new energy and producing new ideas. But on the whole, elected Republicans and candidates have not held up our end.  Instead of emulating those earlier conservatives, too many Republicans today mimic them – still advocating policies from a bygone age. It’s hard to believe, but by the time we reach November 2016, we will be about as far – chronologically speaking – from Reagan’s election as Reagan’s election was from D-Day! Yet as the decades pass and a new generation of Americans faces a new generation of problems, the party establishment clings to its 1970s agenda like a security blanket. The result is that to many Americans today, especially to the underprivileged and middle class, or those who have come of age or immigrated since Reagan left office the Republican Party may not seem to have much of a relevant reform message at all. This is the reason the G.O.P. can seem so out of touch. And it is also the reason we find ourselves in such internal disarray. The gaping hole in the middle of the Republican Party today – the one that separates the grassroots from establishment leaders – is precisely the size and shape of a new, unifying conservative reform agenda. For years, we have tried to bridge that gulf with tactics and personalities and spin. But it doesn’t work. To revive and reunify our movement, we must fill the void with new and innovative policy ideas. Today, as it was a generation ago, the establishment will not produce that agenda. And so, once again, conservatives must. We must. And three recent efforts show that we still can. Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake’s crusade against earmarks, Paul Ryan’s heroic work on Medicare reform, and Rand Paul’s stand against domestic drone-strike authority all demonstrate that thoughtful, idea-driven conservatism is as powerful today as it has ever been. It’s time for another Great Debate, and we should welcome all input. Grassroots and establishment, conservatives and moderates, libertarians and traditionalists, interventionists and non-interventionists, economic conservatives and social conservatives: all are part of our movement, and all are vital to our success – so all should be welcome in this debate. There are still nearly three years before Republicans will have a chance to select a new, unifying conservative leader. But together we can start debating and developing a new, unifying conservative agenda right now. Where do we begin? A generation ago, conservatives forged an agenda to meet the great challenges facing Americans in the late 1970s: inflation, poor growth, Soviet aggression, along with a dispiriting pessimism about the future of the nation and their own families. I submit that the great challenge of our generation is America’s growing crisis of stagnation and sclerosis – a crisis that comes down to a shortage of opportunities. This opportunity crisis presents itself in three principal ways: immobility among the poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, where families just can’t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top, where political and economic elites unfairly profit at everyone else’s expense. The Republican Party should tackle these three crises head on. First, we need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty, upward-mobility agenda designed not simply help people in poverty, but to help and empower them to get out. Here, my home state of Utah can be a guide. A recent study found the Salt Lake City metropolitan area to be the most upwardly mobile region in the United States.  In an addition to a well-managed, limited government where jobs and opportunity abound, Utah is home to an enormously successful private welfare system led by churches, businesses, and community groups and volunteers. We understand that, as it is lived in America, freedom doesn’t mean you’re on your own. Freedom means we’re all in this together. This agenda must include but also transcend welfare reform. Additionally, we need to reform education, housing, immigration, health care, and our criminal justice and prison systems. This new agenda must recognize that work for able-bodied adults is not a necessary evil, but an essential pathway to personal happiness and prosperity. And it should also force Republicans and Democrats to acknowledge that there is another marriage debate in this country – one concerning fatherless children, economic inequality, and broken communities – that deserves as much public attention as the other. Second, we need a new, comprehensive anti-cronyism agenda, to break up the corrupt nexus of big government, big business, and big special interests. We need a new corporate tax code and regulatory system to eliminate lobbyists’ loopholes and giveaways, level the playing field between businesses, big and small, and foster a dynamic, globally competitive private sector. We need to end subsidies that unfairly favor some businesses and industries over others. And the Republican Party must make a fundamental commitment to end its support for corporate welfare in any form – including for the Big Banks. The Left today no longer represents the “little guy,” but the crony clients of the ever-expanding special-interest state. Progressives have become the Party of Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. We must become the party of Main Street, everywhere. Which brings me to the third essential piece of our new agenda: a new conservatism of the working and middle class. Today, working families’ take-home pay is flat, but the staples of middle-class security and opportunity – health care, education, home ownership, work-life balance, and children – are becoming harder to afford all the time. Progressives say we just need more programs to give working families more government money. But as we have seen once again over the last five years, big government creates opportunity for the middlemen at the expense of the middle class. It only masks the broken policies that artificially raise costs and restrict access in the first place. Instead, conservatives need new ideas to address the root causes of those problems. The first and most important policy goal Republicans must adopt to improve the lives of middle-class families is, and will remain, the full repeal of Obamacare. It’s important to understand why. Health care is one of the main reasons why the cost of living in the middle class is increasing too quickly for many Americans to keep up. At the same time, it is the main reason why government spending and debt are out of control. The law the Democrats enacted on a party-line vote in 2010 is going to make both of those problems worse – accelerating health care costs both for families and the government. At the same time, Obamacare poses very serious threats to our constitutional system, to the relationship between Washington and the states, to individual liberty and conscience rights, to the strength of our economy, and to the quality of our health care system. That puts health care right at the center of what conservatives need to be thinking about. And it means our movement has to be intensely engaged not only in the fight to repeal, but also in the debate to replace Obamacare. That debate is not over. It’s only just beginning. It took Obamacare to get Republican health care policy innovation off the sidelines, but we’re finally in the game. And today, conservative ideas are not only superior to Obamacare – they are superior to the old status-quo before Obamacare. The House Republican Study Committee has introduced a comprehensive health reform plan – led by Representatives Steve Scalise and Phil Roe. The Heritage Foundation proposed its own health care reform package as part of the Saving the American Dream plan, which I introduced in the Senate last year. It included, among other things, a universal tax credit to buy health insurance, with extra help for those with lower incomes. I know my friend Paul Ryan and others are working on their own health care plans that will continue to improve the debate. And this is as it should be. Too many in Washington seem to believe that on any issue, Republicans should either have one plan – one that everyone supports in lockstep – or no plans. But unity cannot come at the expense of creativity. The day will come when Republicans need a health care plan – today we need ten! Conservatives are supposed to believe in the wisdom of markets. So let’s trust the marketplace of ideas. If we want policy innovation, we need to innovate policy! On health care, we have been. And we need more of that kind of innovation – especially to meet the broader range of problems confronting the middle class. To do my part, today I want to talk about four pieces of legislation specifically designed to address four leading challenges facing middle-class families today: the cost of raising children; the difficulties of work-life balance; the time Americans lose away from work and home, stuck in traffic; and the rising costs of and restricted access to quality higher education. These bills won’t solve every problem under the sun. Raising a family isn’t supposed to be easy. But each would restore to working families more of the freedom they deserve to pursue their happiness: to earn a good living and build a good life. Perhaps the most basic challenge facing middle-class families is how expensive it has become for couples to simply start and grow their families: the exploding costs of raising children. According to the Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child to maturity in the United States today is about $300,000. Even adjusting for inflation, that’s 15% higher than in our parents’ generation. But even that number doesn’t count foregone wages, or childcare and college, both of which have seen rampant inflation in recent decades as well. All told, according to demography writer Jonathan Last, “you’re talking $1.1 million to raise a single child.” As Last puts it, for a family making the median income: “Having a baby is like buying six houses, all at once. Except that you can’t (legally) sell them – and after 13 years they’ll tell you they hate you.” Here again, Democrats say the solution is new programs to give parents more of other people’s money. I say we let middle-class parents keep more of their own money! And so tomorrow, I will be introducing in the Senate the “Family Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act.” My plan calls for a 15% tax rate on all income up to $87,850 – or $175,700 for married couples. Income above that threshold would be taxed at 35%. Like any good conservative tax-reform plan, my bill also simplifies the code, eliminating or reforming most deductions. But the heart of the plan is a new, additional $2,500 per-child tax credit that can offset parents’ income and payroll-tax liability. This last point is crucial. Many middle-class parents may pay no income taxes – but they do pay taxes. Working parents are not free riders. Actually, when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, parents pay twice: first when they pay their payroll taxes, just like everyone else, and then again, by bearing the enormous costs of raising their kids, who will grow up to not only pay taxes, but cure diseases, and invent the next iPhone, and most importantly, provide their parents with grandkids! So my plan eliminates this anti-family bias in the tax code, while improving pro-growth incentives for the economy. Under my plan, a married couple with two children making the national median income of $51,000 would see a tax cut of roughly $5,000 per year. For middle-class families, that’s money – their own money, right away – to get out of debt, move into a new neighborhood with better schools, afford childcare, help a mom or dad scale back from full time to part time, or even to stay at home with young children. That is pro-family, pro-growth conservative reform. Another struggle facing working families is the constant challenge of work-life balance. Parents today need to juggle work, home, kids, and community. For many families, especially with young children, their most precious commodity is time. But today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. That’s because many of those laws were written decades ago, when most women didn’t work outside the home. Because of these laws, an hourly employee who works overtime is not allowed to take comp-time or flex time. Even if she prefers it, her boss can’t even offer it. Today, if a working mom or dad stays late at the office on Monday and Tuesday, and instead of receiving extra pay wants to get compensated by leaving early on Friday to spend the afternoon with the kids… that could be violating federal law. That sounds unfair, especially to parents. But how do we know for sure? Because Congress gave a special exemption from that law for government employees. This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available to government bureaucrats should be available to the citizens they serve.  In May, the House of Representatives passed the “Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013,” sponsored by Representative Martha Roby of Alabama, to equalize flex-time rules for all workers.  And this week I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate.  There are real problems in this world, some of which must be addressed by government action. The fact that most working parents would prefer to spend more time with their families is not one of those problems. And Congress needs to stop punishing them for trying to do so.  The federal government also needs to open up America’s transportation system to diversity and experimentation, so that Americans can spend more time with their families in more affordable homes, and less time stuck in maddening traffic. House-hunting middle class families today often face a Catch-22. They can stretch their finances to near bankruptcy to afford a home close to work. Or they can choose a home in a more affordable neighborhood so far away from work that they miss soccer games, piano recitals, and family dinner while stuck in gridlocked traffic. The solution is not more government-subsidized mortgages or housing programs. A real solution involves building more roads. More roads, bridges, lanes, and mass-transit systems. Properly planned and located, these projects would help create new jobs, new communities, more affordable homes, shorter commuting times, and greater opportunity for businesses and families. Transportation infrastructure is one of the things government is supposed to do – and conservatives should make sure it is done exceptionally well. Unfortunately, since completing the Interstate Highway System decades ago, the federal government has gotten pretty bad at maintaining and improving our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Today, the federal highway program is funded by a gasoline tax of 18.4 cents on every gallon sold at the pump. That money is supposed to be going into steel, concrete, and asphalt in the ground. Instead, too much of it is being siphoned off by bureaucrats and special interests in Washington. And so Congressman Tom Graves and I are going to introduce the Transportation Empowerment Act. Under our bill, the federal gas tax would be phased down over five years from 18.4 cents per gallon, to 3.7 cents. And highway authority would be transferred proportionately from the federal government to the states. Under our new system, Americans would no longer have to send significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingered politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached. Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects. Some communities could choose to build more roads, while others might prefer to repair old ones. Some might build highways, others light-rail. And all would be free to experiment with innovative green technologies, and new ways to finance their projects, like congestion pricing and smart tolls. But the point is that all states and localities should finally have the flexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want, for less money, without politicians and special interests from other parts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they should build. For the country as a whole, our plan would mean a better infrastructure system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism, and innovative environmental protection. And for working families, it could mean more access to quality, affordable homes, less time on the road – and making it home in time for dinner with the kids. And finally, there is perhaps no barrier to middle-class security and opportunity more frustrating than those surrounding higher education. While it’s true that college has never been for everyone, as we transition from an industrial economy to an information and service-based economy, post-secondary education cannot be a luxury available only to a select few. Some combination of higher education and vocational training should at least be an option for just about everyone who graduates from high school. Yet today, the federal government restricts access to higher education and inflates its cost, inuring unfairly to the advantage of special interests at the expense of students, teachers, and taxpayers. The federal government does this though its control over college accreditation.  Because eligibility for federal student loans is tied to the federal accreditation regime, we shut out students who want to learn, teachers who want to teach, transformative technologies, and cost-saving innovations. And so, in the coming days, I will be introducing the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. Under this legislation, the existing accreditation system would remain unchanged. Current colleges and universities could continue to use the system they know. But my plan would give states a new option to enter into agreements with the Department of Education to create their own, alternative accreditation systems to open up new options for students qualifying for federal aid. Today, only degree-issuing academic institutions are even allowed to be accredited. Under the new, optional state systems that my bill would authorize, accreditation could also be available to specialized programs, individual courses, apprenticeships, professional credentialing, and even competency-based tests. States could accredit online courses, or hybrid models with elements on- and off-campus.  These systems would open up opportunities for non-traditional students – like single parents working double shifts – whose life responsibilities might make it impossible to take more than one class at a time. They would also enable traditional students to tailor a degree that better reflects the knowledge and skills valued by employers. Innovations in vocational education and training would open new opportunities in growing fields that are hiring right now. Qualified unions, businesses, and trade groups could start to accredit courses and programs tailored to their evolving needs. Churches and charities could enlist qualified volunteers to offer accredited classes and training for next to nothing. States could use innovative systems to attract new opportunities and businesses, investing in their own future by investing in the human capital of their citizens. Imagine having access to credit and student aid and for a program in computer science accredited by Apple or in music accredited by the New York Philharmonic; college-level history classes on-site at Mount Vernon or Gettysburg; medical-technician training developed by the Mayo Clinic; taking massive, open, online courses offered by the best teachers in the world from your living room or the public library. Brick-and-ivy institutions will always be the backbone of our higher-education system, but they shouldn’t be the only option. If these new models were to succeed, they would create a virtuous cycle. Traditional colleges would be impelled to cut waste, refocus on their students, and embrace innovation and experimentation as part of their campus cultures.    This reform could allow a student to completely customize her transcript – and “college” experience – while allowing federal aid to follow her through all of these different options. Students could mix and match courses, programs, tests, on-line and on-campus credits a la carte, pursuing their degree or certification at their own pace while bringing down costs to themselves, their families, and the taxpayers.  This is what conservative reform should be trying to create: an open, affordable, innovative higher education system to better serve and secure all Americans in a global information economy.  Taken together, some more take-home pay, more time with the kids, a shorter commute, and more access to college won’t necessarily revolutionize our society, or cause the oceans to recede, or make everyone rich. What they – and other conservative reforms – could and should do is make our economy a little stronger, our society a little fairer, and life a little better for America’s moms, and dads, and children. And that’s a mandate for leadership in any generation. There is obviously much more to be done. But the point I’ve tried to make – and the lesson I hope we take – is that the Republican Party, at its best, is a Party of Ideas. It is ideas that unite and inspire conservatives. The leaders of Reagan’s generation understood that. And we must, too. Especially in the wake of recent controversies, many conservatives are more frustrated with the establishment than ever before. And we have every reason to be.  But however justified, frustration is not a platform. Anger is not an agenda. And outrage, as a habit, is not even conservative. Outrage, resentment, and intolerance are gargoyles of the Left. For us, optimism is not just a message – it’s a principle. American conservatism, at its core, is about gratitude, and cooperation, and trust, and above all hope. It is also about inclusion. Successful political movements are about identifying converts, not heretics. This, too, is part of the challenge before us. In his 1977 CPAC speech effectively kicking off that era’s great conservative debate, Ronald Reagan said: “If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles for the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.” Do we have the same spirit of charity and confidence in our ideas today? If we do not, this moment and opportunity will pass us by. We will lose, and we will deserve to lose. And rest assured, in that unfortunate event, it will not be the indifferent Republican establishment that profits from our failure. It will be a parade of progressives who will continue to lead our country, unabated, further away from our hopes, and our values, and our ability to do anything about it. If our generation of conservatives wants to enjoy our own defining triumph, our own 1980 – we are going to have to deserve it. That means sharpening more pencils than knives. The kind of work it will require is neither glamorous nor fun – and sometimes it isn’t even noticed. But it is necessary.  To deserve victory, conservatives have to do more than pick a fight. We have to win a debate. And to do that, we need more than just guts. We need an agenda.  Our generation of conservatives has big shoes to fill, and a lot of lost time to make up. So, let’s get to work. Thank you very much.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z