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.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a4ad26bc-0510-464f-a5e0-ca468663b8cf,Merry Christmas from Senator Orrin G Hatch,2014-12-24,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Dear Friends, As we gather this holiday season, it is natural to reflect on all those who bless our lives, our families, and our communities.  Thousands of volunteers across our state and nation feed the homeless and help make Christmas a reality for needy children and families. Even strangers stand on street corners singing carols for peace. Acts of kindness and examples of service give grateful hearts a chance to flourish.  My year has been filled with wonderful moments shared with family, friends, and Utahns from every corner of our state. You have uplifted me and strengthened my convicition that we live in a state and nation filled with wonderful people dedicated to preserving the freedoms we cherish.  Our liberties are defended by the brave men and women who serve in our nation’s armed forces and are often far away from their homes and families during this holiday season. I honor and revere our nation’s service-members and commend their dedication and sacrifice. One of the greatest privleges I have as a United States Senator is to bestow military honors on deserving veterans, or their family members, who for some reason have not received the medals they have earned. This week, I had the opportunity to give a long-overdue Silver Star Medal to Jeff Roberts, son of World War I veteran Corporal Jeremiah Roberts, who fought in the battle of Soissons France on July 18-19, 1918. Corporal Roberts was a runner in that battle, which has been credited as a pivotal turning point in the First World War. I was thrilled to present this medal to the Roberts family as a testament of the courage and heroism their father displayed during combat. Corporal Roberts’ sacrifice is the real gift that keeps giving.  Corporal Roberts is not alone—millions of Americans have bravely served our country in countless ways and sacrificed mightily for our nation to remain free.  The holidays are a season of forgiveness, they inspire acts of peace and love, and they present opportunities to celebrate renewed hope. So as the cookies are eaten, the gifts unwrapped, and the decorations enjoyed, may we all also reflect on the goodness of our neighbors, the sacrifice of many on our behalf, and the strength of our nation. Elaine and I send our very best wishes to you for a Merry Christmas and joyous New Year!",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20150103055402/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-cummings-respond-dhs-secret-service-panel-report,"Chaffetz, Cummings Respond to DHS Secret Service Panel Report",2014-12-18,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman-elect Jason Chaffetz (R – UT), and current Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D – MD), released the following statement in response to a review conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Department of Homeland Security on recent security breaches within the Secret Service: ""We appreciate the hard work this panel put into reviewing recent incidents within the Secret Service. Their report highlights many issues we have long had concerns with. Every day honorable men and women put their lives on the line to protect the President, first family, and others within the Administration. There’s no room for mistakes. “At the start of the new Congress, we will be conducting a bipartisan investigation that will allow lawmakers to further examine some of the matters highlighted in this report. The investigation will examine security breaches that have recently been publicly reported, as well as focus on overall leadership, staffing, culture, protocol, technology, tactics and training issues. A serious and robust investigation must include cooperation on both sides of aisle in order to root out systemic problems and implement proper reforms.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=ff739e8f-9e7d-4b7a-bf13-4396ee96b446,Dont Change the Filibuster Again,2014-12-18,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"With each passing year since arriving in Washington in 1977, I have come to revere the Senate’s distinctive character and its unique role in our system of self-government. Having been a member of that body for 38 years, I am as much a Senate institutionalist as anyone. The Senate’s rules and traditions are much more than historical oddities—they represent the ways our upper chamber has, over many decades and even centuries, enshrined principles of meaningful deliberation and considered judgment into the very structure of the institution. These distinctive precedents and procedures are what make the Senate both unique and effective. In recent months, I have decried procedural abuses that have damaged many of these institutional features. The Senate’s longstanding traditions of robust debate, an open amendment process, and regular order for committee work have come under sustained assault. Last year, 52 Democrats even invoked the so-called “nuclear option” to lower the 60-vote threshold for ending debate on most nominations. Such actions represent a direct affront to the Senate’s characteristic mode of operating by deliberation and consensus. As the most senior member of my party in the Senate, I have felt compelled to speak out against this shameful institutional damage. Many others in both parties have expressed similar dismay. The Senate is broken, and everyone knows it. The incoming Republican majority must honor our promise to restore the Senate to regular order and reclaim the mantle of “world’s greatest deliberative body.” To do so, we must renew our commitment to substantive debate and an open process for amending legislation. But returning to the pre-nuclear option filibuster rule would serve neither the interests of the Senate as an institution, nor constitutionally limited government more broadly. While the legislative filibuster has been critical to the Senate’s deliberative lawmaking for more than two centuries, use of filibusters to defeat nominees who have majority support is a decidedly recent phenomenon. In fact, the first such nomination filibuster occurred in 2003—hardly an historic practice. Although the prospect of filibustering nominees could sometimes be a useful tool for the minority, it was never central to the Senate’s deliberative identity. Because Republicans will soon control the Senate and its committees—and can therefore slow or block controversial nominations by other means—the rule is irrelevant for the next two years. And readopting a 60-vote threshold for nominees now is unlikely to do much good in the long run. By taking the extraordinary step of eliminating nomination filibusters by a bare majority vote, Senate Democrats demonstrated nothing short of contempt for that standard. A temporary return to the 60-vote threshold would last only until the next Democratic majority found abolishing the rule in its political interest. Rather, an immediate return to the prior nominations standard under Republican control would only reward Democrats for their misdeed and—since they have reaped the benefits but borne none of the costs—Democrats would have further incentive to engage in procedural abuses. Such a return would do nothing to prevent the same cycle of abuse from repeating itself in the future. To safeguard the Senate’s core procedural protections—including the indispensible and truly historic legislative filibuster—Democrats must live with the consequences of such abuses when voters return them to the minority. As important as the institutional harm to the Senate is the significant damage done to the federal judiciary. Democrats used the nuclear option to pack important courts like the D.C. Circuit with far-left judges, some of whom have already begun to ratify President Obama’s executive lawlessness in health care, environmental regulation, and elsewhere. The next Republican administration will have to work hard to restore balance to the federal courts. Reinstating the 60-vote threshold for nominees would make this task impossible and serve to perpetuate the imbalance. Republicans would need 60 votes to confirm their nominees, while Democrats needed only 51 votes to confirm their own picks. Such a partisan double standard makes no sense and would cause irreparable harm to our third branch of government. To restore the prior nominations threshold would be to cede the federal judiciary to liberal activists. Republicans are right to seek to return the Senate to its historical role and restore its fundamentally deliberative character. We can do so by reinstituting principles of regular order, honoring the committee process, allowing amendments, encouraging civility, preserving the legislative filibuster, and seeking constructive action through robust debate. But requiring 60 votes for nominations will do nothing to undo recent institutional damage—both to the Senate and to the courts—and will only invite further destruction of the upper chamber and the system of government we have sworn to defend. This op-ed appeared in Politico Pro on December 8, 2014.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chairman-elect-chaffetz-announces-new-oversight-subcommittees-and-chairs,Chairman-elect Chaffetz Announces New Oversight Subcommittees and Chairs,2014-12-17,2014,2014-12,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/20150103055424/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-cromnibus-edition,Myths vs. Facts: CRomnibus Legislation,2014-12-17,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Many of you continue to have concerns about the omnibus bill passed last week.  I understand your concerns.  The bill is an imperfect compromise with the problems and budget gimmicks typical of all appropriations bills.  However, I believe passing this bill was important to Utah and represents our best strategy for fighting the President’s agenda.  There is a reason the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren voted against this bill.  There is a lot of misinformation circulating about this bill. Let’s talk about some of those myths. MYTH:  Voting against the CRomnibus would put an end to executive amnesty. FACT:  False.  If the CRomnibus had been defeated, the President’s executive orders would still be carried out. During the last shutdown, just 15% of DHS employees were furloughed.  The rest - 85% - were deemed “essential” and continued to work through the shutdown.  A shutdown would not stop executive amnesty.  Furthermore, the agency carrying out the President’s orders is primarily funded by user fees.  In a government shutdown, those fees are still collected. I believe we must change the equation.  Can that be done with a Harry Reid-led Senate?  Unfortunately,  no.  With a new Senate, I hope and expect we can and will. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, explains, “The CRomnibus actually presents the best possible chance of stopping executive amnesty, as not even a government shutdown will stop the President’s executive actions. The CRomnibus provided just two months of funding for the Department of Homeland Security so that our border patrol can keep the border secure through the end of February. One of the first things that House and Senate Republicans will tackle - TOGETHER - is to create a budget for DHS that includes our tough House border security bill and specific language to stop the use of any funds, appropriated or gathered via fees, to implement the President's executive amnesty plan. While the President and Democrats were hoping to force a government shutdown debate early next year to detract the public's attention from his unlawful immigration executive order and discredit the new Republican Senate, thanks to the CRomnibus we sidestepped their trap and strengthened the new Republican Senate's ability to put a bill on the President's desk forcing him to choose between protecting our border or protecting illegal immigrants.” MYTH:  A vote for the CRomnibus was a betrayal of Utah voters. FACT:  A vote against the bill would have been the real betrayal.  Failure to pass this budget would have cost rural Utah counties a substantial portion of the funds upon which they rely to provide public safety, infrastructure and other critical services. A vote that could financially devastate the counties I represent would have been a true betrayal.  Because the federal government pays no property taxes on the millions of acres it controls in our rural counties, those counties are forced to rely on PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) to run local government.  The omnibus, along with the National Defense Authorization Act, fully funds PILT at $442 million. This funding will provide certainty and badly needed stability for rural counties in Utah and across the West.  There is no funding vehicle for PILT payments – the only way Utah ever gets this money is if the bill is attached to an appropriations bill.  The Utah delegation worked hard for our constituents to get PILT payments into the omnibus bill. FACT:  Voting against the sage grouse provision would have been a further betrayal of Utah voters.  Because the CRomnibus prohibits the US Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing rules to place the Western and Gunnison Sage Grouse on the Endangered Species List for a year, Western states gained a huge concession. We can now demonstrate once again that states can manage endangered species without the one-size-fits-all policies of federal agencies that hurt our local economies and have a low rate of success. Utah's state plan has been successful and proves that habitat protection can co-exist with grazing, mining, drilling and other land uses.  The CRomnibus contains numerous other provisions important to Western states.  The Western Caucus has provided an excellent summary of those provisions here. MYTH:  The CRomnibus empowers environmentalists and the EPA. FACT:  The CRomnibus cut EPA funding by $60 million. The Western Caucus reports, “Overall, EPA funding has been reduced by $2.2 billion – or 21% since Republicans gained control of the House in 2010.  The agreement rejects $66 million requested by the President for EPA regulatory programs and creates exemptions for livestock producers from onerous greenhouse gas regulations.” MYTH:  The CRomnibus is full of pork and giveaways. FACT: Budget authority for 2015 is even lower than the budget authority for 2008, despite seven years of inflation, population growth, and GDP growth.  This bill dramatically slows the growth in discretionary spending.  In actual dollars, total discretionary spending will have decreased for the fifth consecutive year. Total discretionary budget authority, including disaster, emergency, and war spending, will be about $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2015, which is lower than 2008.  This appropriations bill continues the trend of reducing total discretionary spending relative to GDP. Discretionary spending relative to GDP has fallen dramatically since the stimulus was enacted and is now even lower than it was prior to the stimulus. In 2007, total discretionary spending equaled 7.5% of GDP. In 2009, total discretionary spending peaked at 10.4% of GDP. However, in 2015, total discretionary spending will approach 6.1% of GDP. These figures include all discretionary spending such as base, disaster, emergency, and war spending.   MYTH: The CRomnibus fully funded ObamaCare through September. FACT: The CRomnibus cut another $10 million from IPAB atop the $52 billion we have cut from Obamacare since 2012.  I have voted more than 40 times to repeal Obamacare.  Unfortunately, Democrats intentionally designed Obamacare to function independent from Congressional discretionary appropriations specifically to prevent us from cutting the funding.  Even the government shutdown did not stop Obamacare because of the way it was funded.  We have repeatedly blocked funding for implementation.  Rep. Brady (R-TX), who is the most senior Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee, writes, “The CRomnibus blocks the White House from using the Prevention and Public Health Fund as a slush fund for ObamaCare, removed $10 million from the IPAB rationing board and blocked taxpayer funds from being used to bailout insurance companies faltering in the exchanges. To sum up, we did not fund ObamaCare through the Cromnibus. As the author of the ObamaCare chart and leader of the Health subcommittee my goal is to repeal ObamaCare as soon as possible (we'll need a new President) as that's the only way to fully defund it, and replace it with a free-market alternative driven by patients, not Washington. In the meantime, we'll continue to repeal and defund as much of it as we can and now with the Senate working with us, not against us.” MYTH:  The CRomnibus shows Republicans aren’t serious about tackling the debt. FACT:   This bill only addresses discretionary spending – which is about1/3 of the federal budget and is not the main driver of our debt.  Even if you reduced discretionary spending to 0, we would still run massive deficits.  Mandatory spending — which is NOT addressed in this or any other appropriations bill — is the primary threat to our nation's economic future. Congress should be focusing more on reforming programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are by far the biggest drivers of our debt. Three years ago, I introduced a Social Security reform proposal. You can view this proposal on my website at http://chaffetz.house.gov/issue/social-security MYTH:  The Y Mountain bill should never have been part of the CRomnibus. FACT:  It wasn’t.  I was able to pass it through the House in each of the last two sessions – first in July 2012 and again in June 2013.  Senator Hatch carried the bill in the Senate.  He wisely attached the legislation to the NDAA and consequently was able to pass it.  It is now on its way to the president’s desk for signature.  You can read more about what it accomplishes here. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=fa879721-003b-4c48-9593-686ec754c583,Sen. Orrin Hatch Responds to Presidents Cuba Announcement,2014-12-17,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C., — Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement following the President’s announcement that he would seek to normalize relations with Cuba: “The President’s decision to begin talks to normalize relations with Cuba is another example of his administration’s habit of appeasing our adversaries. Time and again, President Obama has predicated his foreign policy on the notion that if we simply accommodate the demands of troublesome regimes, they will cease their disturbing behavior.  Even more disturbing, the President’s announcement constitutes a fundamental shift from our decades old policy, reaffirmed by both Republican and Democrat administrations, to isolate the Cuban regime due to its repression of the Cuban people.  It is beyond doubt that the Cuban regime continues to stifle democracy and violate fundamental human rights.  Like many of my colleagues, I remain committed to a Cuba policy that continues to place pressure on the Castro regime until the Cuban people are free.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=ea4700bd-dea4-45f3-a509-de81230d07bc,Lee: Our Executive Officials Must Uphold the Rule of Law,2014-12-16,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senator Mike Lee made the following remarks regarding his opposition to the confirmation of Sarah Saldaa, President Obamas nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr./Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Sarah Saldaa to be in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security. As we know, the President has recently announced that he will take unilateral executive action on immigration. In so doing he has circumvented the democratic process, broken the law, and subverted the constitutional order. It is incumbent on every member of this body no matter what their politics, or what immigration policies they would prefer to enact to oppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the rule of law. Fulfilling that duty leads me to oppose Ms. Saldaas nomination to be ICE director. Although I respect her and her record of public service, including an admirable independent streak as United States Attorney, she has also demonstrated that her commitment to the rule of law may falter when it comes to faithfully enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. In response to a question asked by several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including me, Ms. Saldaa said she agreed with the position of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who entered the country illegally, and have now been targeted for so-called deferred action, have earned the right to be citizens. Thats quite a bold claim. No doubt Congress could, and many people think it should, ease the path the citizenship for some aliens here unlawfully. But to assert that citizenship is a matter of right, and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our immigration laws, is an unacceptable view for a person nominated to be head of immigration enforcement. We have passed through the looking glass. And to see how far weve gone inside, observe: Today the President asks the Senate to install, as custodian of our border, a person who evidently believes that crossing our border illegally earns you the right to vote. The Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to give the President advice about his executive nominations, and ultimately its consent. My advice is this: The President should not proffer a nominee for the job of executing our immigration laws who affirmatively supports subverting them. But that is exactly what he has done, so I cannot and will not give my consent. Read the full speech here",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20151215024933/http://chaffetz.house.gov:80/press-release/house-passes-fy-2015-cr-omnibus,House Passes FY 2015 CR-Omnibus,2014-12-12,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Like all appropriations bills, this year's appropriations bill has several problems and budget gimmicks, but fortunately this bill has more good than bad. It's an imperfect compromise, but it avoids a government shutdown while dramatically slowing the growth in discretionary spending. In actual dollars, total discretionary spending will have decreased for the fifth consecutive year. Total discretionary budget authority, including disaster, emergency, and war spending, will be about $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2015, which will be even lower than budget authority for fiscal year 2008 despite seven years of inflation, population growth, and GDP growth. For this reason, I voted yes for the Fiscal Year 2015 Continuing Resolution Omnibus. This appropriations bill continues the trend of reducing total discretionary spending relative to GDP. Discretionary spending relative to GDP has fallen dramatically since the stimulus was enacted and is now even lower than it was prior to the stimulus. In 2007, total discretionary spending equaled 7.5% of GDP. In 2009, total discretionary spending peaked at 10.4% of GDP. However, in 2015, total discretionary spending will approach 6.1% of GDP. These figures include all discretionary spending such as base, disaster, emergency, and war spending. The federal government has serious long-term budget problems, but discretionary spending is not the main driver of our future deficits. Entitlement spending — which is NOT addressed in appropriations bills — is the primary threat to our nation's economic future. Congress should be focusing more on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Three years ago, I introduced a Social Security reform proposal. You can view this proposal on my website at http://chaffetz.house.gov/issue/social-security Besides restricting the growth in discretionary spending, is there anything else that's good about this bill? Yes, several items important to Utah and other western states were addressed in the bill. First, the omnibus prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from issuing rules to place the sage-grouse and the Gunnison-sage grouse on the Endangered Species list during the current fiscal year. This is a major victory for Utah. Second, the omnibus, along with the National Defense Authorization Act, fully funds PILT at $442 million. PILT is an important source of funding for rural counties that have very large amounts of federally owned land. What about defunding President Obama's executive order on illegal immigrants? The omnibus/continuing resolution will only provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security until February 27, 2015. The 114th Congress will be forced to revisit this issue and address the President’s executive order on Immigration before this date.  Many of the midterm campaigns revolved around the issue of immigration, and I believe these new members, including a new Republican majority in the Senate, should be involved in reversing the President's order. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=13fd4d6b-380a-479b-91bb-26a265986f79,Senate Approves Bipartisan Bill to Protect Consumers from Steroids,2014-12-12,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved legislation to end a loophole that allows designer anabolic steroids to easily be found online, in gyms, and even in retail stores.  The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act, sponsored by U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), will help protect consumers from these harmful products by properly classifying them as controlled substances and impose civil penalties for importing, manufacturing, or distributing them under false labels. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives in September, and will now be sent to the President to be signed into law.  “The world’s top athletes are subject to strict guidelines and rigorous testing to prevent the use of steroids, as they should be.  At the same time, many American citizens may be unknowingly dosing themselves with these harmful substances,” said Senator Whitehouse.  “American consumers deserve to know what is in the products they purchase.  This bill will help prevent the sale of falsely labeled steroids, and I’m glad it will become law.  I thank Senator Hatch for his support and Judiciary Chairman Leahy for enabling this bill to move forward.” “This is a commonsense bill that will protect consumers by giving DEA the tools and authority to remove dangerous steroids from the market,” said Hatch.  “I’m pleased Senator Whitehouse and I could work together in bipartisan fashion to help make this important law a reality.”  Designer steroids are produced by reverse engineering existing illegal steroids and then slightly modifying their chemical composition, so the resulting product is not on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) list of controlled substances.  When taken by consumers, designer steroids can cause serious medical harm, including liver injury and increased risk of heart attack and stroke.  They may also lead to aggression, hostility, and addiction. The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act would: Immediately place 25 known designer anabolic steroids on the list of controlled substances; Grant the DEA authority to temporarily schedule new designer steroids on the controlled substances list, so that if bad actors develop new variations, these products can be removed from the market; Create new penalties for importing, manufacturing, or distributing anabolic steroids under false labels; and Authorize the Attorney General to publish a list of products containing an anabolic steroid that are not properly labeled. The legislation was supported by a coalition of organizations, including: American Academy of Family Physicians American Association of Nurse Practitioners American Pharmacists’ Association Council for Responsible Nutrition United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=56058fa3-3adf-427b-993c-23f51e247e9e,Sen. Orrin Hatch Introduces the Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act of 2014,2014-12-12,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the United States Senate and a longtime supporter of regulatory reform, issued the following statement after introducing the Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act of 2014: “One of the biggest problems we face as a nation is the massive accumulation of federal regulations. Administrative rules now impose an estimated burden of $1.86 trillion on the nation’s economy—roughly $15,000 per household. Every President since Jimmy Carter has endorsed the idea of reviewing old regulations to get rid of those that are excessively burdensome, outdated, or ineffective. But too many unjustified regulations continue to hold back job creation and economic growth. The SCRUB Act will provide a commonsense and practical means to reduce the unnecessary costs of existing regulations.” The SCRUB Act: Establishes a bipartisan, Blue-Ribbon, BRAC-style commission to review existing federal regulations and identify those that should be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens.  Sets the Commission’s goal to be the reduction of at least 15 percent in the cumulative costs of federal regulation with a minimal reduction in the overall effectiveness of such regulation.  Prioritizes for review regulations that are major rules, have been in effect more than 15 years, impose paperwork burdens that could be reduced substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory effectiveness, impose disproportionately high costs on small businesses, or could be strengthened in their effectiveness while reducing regulatory costs.  Establishes key additional factors to be taken into account when identifying regulations for repeal (e.g., the regulations have: been rendered obsolete by technological or market changes; achieved their goals and can be repealed without target problems recurring; are ineffective; overlap, duplicate or conflict with other federal regulations or with state and local regulations; or, impose costs that are not justified by benefits produced for society within the United States).  Requires that annual and final Commission recommendations of regulations for presented to Congress for approval by joint resolutions of Congress. If Congress votes to approve the Commission’s recommendations, repeal must take place.  For any given regulation, the Commission is authorized to recommend either immediate repeal or repeal through “cut-go” procedures, whereby agencies, on a forward basis, would have to offset the costs of new regulations by repealing Commission-identified regulations of equal or greater cost. These procedures allow immediate repeal in the most urgent cases and staggered repeals of other regulations to assure a smoother process for agencies and affected entities.  In the House of Representatives, the SCRUB Act is sponsored by Representative Jason Smith (R-Missouri). It passed the both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this fall.  Senator Hatch has played a key role in every major regulatory reform effort for the past 38 years, including as an original cosponsor of the 1981 Regulatory Reform Act and as an author of the 1995 Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act while serving as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His past proposals that address the problem of regulatory accumulation include the original Regulatory Accountability Act of 1993, which included a number of mechanisms for implementing retrospective review similar to those in the SCRUB Act. In major addresses at the Reagan Ranch in October and at the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention in November, Senator Hatch named the SCRUB Act among the regulatory reform proposals that will be his top priorities in the 114th Congress.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f6ea80ad-0e66-4cb5-9ae7-69c7f8e3a6c6,Senator Hatch Comments on Passage of NDAA,2014-12-12,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, issued the following statement on the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act: “I am honored to show my support for our men and women in uniform by voting for the NDAA at a time when they need our support the most. This legislative package also includes important local land-use conveyances that will benefit Utah, including the Y Mountain Trail and Y Conveyance Act, which I sponsored with Rep. Chaffetz, and the Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act, which I sponsored with Rep. Bishop. I thank both of my Utah colleagues for their leadership in chipping away at the inventory of federal lands in Utah.”   “This NDAA bill was far from perfect. I look forward to next year, when the Senate’s Democratic leadership will no longer have the ability to force votes on massive measures at the last moment, giving the Senate little choice. My Republican colleagues and I are determined to restore regular order to the Senate.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397677,Bishop Statement on Continuing Resolution & Omnibus Package,2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— Late last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015. The legislation averts a shutdown of the federal government and limits the budget of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through February 2015. The short-term funding of DHS prevents long-term implementation of the President’s amnesty policy, allowing the House and Senate to address the executive order in the new Congress. Additionally, it addresses key policies on matters including the Department of Interior’s Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program, the listing of the greater sage grouse as an endangered or threatened species, and the construction of architect Frank Gehry’s controversial design for the Eisenhower Memorial. House Natural Resources Chairman-elect Rob Bishop (UT-01) released the following statement in response to the legislation: “There are some significant gains for western and rural states in this legislation and I am especially pleased that we have established safeguards to limit long-term actions that may be taken toward implementation of the President’s amnesty executive order. For states like Utah, it is especially important that this bill gives the Fish and Wildlife Service additional time to evaluate state progress on management and conservation of the greater sage grouse. States like Utah are making progress every day to collaborate with local communities and public land users to protect the species. “I am also pleased that PILT will continue in FY2015 for counties surrounded by public lands. The compensation they receive to address the lack of tax revenue generated from federal land helps fund important community infrastructure that is typically funded through property taxes and other public uses. A similar program that funds communities in areas with National Forests known as the Secure Rural Schools program was not included in this legislation. I remain committed to ensuring SRS is addressed early in the 114th Congress. “The nature of these bicameral and bipartisan packages is that they’re extremely dynamic and far from perfect.  Taxpayer dollars are a finite resource that should be appropriated and spent with utmost scrutiny and oversight. This is why I remain concerned about the status of the Eisenhower Memorial project and architect Frank Gehry’s controversial design. Taxpayers have bankrolled the Eisenhower Memorial Commission and its staff, Gehry’s architectural firm, and the widely unpopular design, for over a decade. After 14 years, there is little to show for the work and only a rough accounting of where the money was spent. I am pleased that this bill includes some safeguards to help get the project back on the right track toward an appropriate and fitting tribute to one of our nation’s greatest leaders,” said Congressman Bishop.   Specifically, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015: ·         Delays the Fish and Wildlife Service’s action and decision on whether or not the greater sage grouse should be listed as an endangered or threatened species to September 2015 ·         Provides $372,000,000 to the U.S. Department of Interior for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. *This is in addition to the $70 million provided in the National Defense Authorization Act ·         Includes safeguards to protect taxpayers from having to bankroll the estimated $140 million for construction of Frank Gehry’s proposed design ·         Prohibits the IRS from unfairly targeting Americans based on their personal, political, or professional connections ·         Includes no funding for Race to the Top ·         Includes no new funding for Obamacare",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-passage-of-the-fy-2015-omnibus-spending-bill,Stewart Statement on Passage of the FY 2015 Omnibus Spending Bill,2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of HR 83, which provides funding for the majority of the Federal Government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015. The bill passed the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote of 219 to 206. The bill provides funding of the Federal Government through FY 2015 except for the Department of Homeland Security, which is only funded until February 27, 2015. Stewart released the following statement after the passage of the bill: “This bill represents a very imperfect compromise between divided houses of Congress. Despite its many shortcomings, I believe that it was critical to avoid another government shutdown, while still holding the President accountable for his overreaching executive action on immigration. That is what this bill does.” Importantly the bill: Provides no new funding for Obamacare. Funds the Department of Homeland Security under a temporary Continuing Resolution until February 27, 2015—allowing for a Republican House and Senate to hold the President accountable for his executive overreach on immigration. Cuts funding to the IRS and prohibits the targeting of groups due to ideological beliefs. Protects important provisions for rural Utah by fully funding the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program. Stops the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the sage-grouse on the Endangered Species List thereby allowing Utah to manage the species under its State Management Plan. Cuts funding for the EPA and prohibits the regulation of lead in ammunition. Fully funds the cost-of-living allowance shortfall for military retirees. Prohibits the implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Prevents the regulation of farm ponds and irrigation ditches under the Clean Water Act. Increases funding for the Veterans Administration in order to address the substantial backlogs in veterans claims. Stewart continued: “This bill allows us to start fresh in the next Congress in doing the people’s business without the threat of Government Shutdown. I look forward to working with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate in the 114th Congress.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a8f7bd9c-291b-4e88-98c3-8a9cf4eefd21,"Hatch, Bennet Introduce Dormant Therapies Act",2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah and Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, introduced the Dormant Therapies Act, a bill that will establish a new class of pharmaceuticals known as ""dormant therapies"" eligible for 15 years of data protection.  This provision will remove the “ticking patent clock” conundrum that forces companies to  prioritize research based on which compounds can be brought quickly to market.  “I’m pleased Senator Bennet has joined me in this important effort to encourage the development of desperately needed treatments for some of the most troubling diseases and disabilities out there,” Hatch said. “We hope to create a time-certain protection to encourage innovators to capture lost opportunities and bring new and essential products to market for the patients who need them.”  “We need to find every possible way to encourage innovation that will improve health care and save lives,” Bennet said. “This bipartisan bill will drive investment in the research and development of therapies that patients need the most.” Millions of patients struggle with conditions such as Alpha-1, ALS, Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, lupus, mesothelioma, and multiple sclerosis.  For many individuals with a long-term disease or disability, no treatments are available.  Of over 7,000 known diseases or conditions, there are only satisfactory treatments for about 500 of them.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b81f0788-cfb2-4aed-9a43-1172b36c6125,Lee Introduces Regulatory Reform Bill,2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senator Lee introduced a bill that reforms our nations regulatory system by creating a regulatory budget process designed to measure, and set an upper limit on, the costs that federal rules and regulations impose on the economy each year. The Regulatory Cost Assessment Act brings transparency, accountability, and discipline to the system by requiring Congress to reclaim from the executive branch the responsibility for the effects and costs of regulations on the private sector. Reforming our federal regulatory regime is one of the greatest challenges facing our country today, said Sen. Lee. Each year thousands of rules and regulations, issued by the alphabet soup of federal agencies in Washington, D.C., cost our economy nearly $2 trillion. These costs are borne by businesses large and small trying to comply with all the red tape, but ultimately theyre passed on to the American people, in the form of lower take-home pay, fewer jobs, and higher costs of goods and services. Right now, the main reason our regulatory system is so onerous and expensive, Lee said, is that regulations are issued by bureaucrats in the executive branch who will never be held to account for their decisions by the American people. This bill takes an important step toward solving that problem by making Congress directly accountable for the regulatory costs each federal agency can impose on the economy.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141212131916/http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-helps-usher-border-patrol-agent-pay-reform-through-house-unanimous-support,Chaffetz Helps Usher Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform through House with Unanimous Support,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, S. 1691, the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014, unanimously passed the House by voice vote. Congressman Chaffetz sponsored its companion bill, H.R. 3463, in the House. This legislation now heads to the president to be signed into law. “Border Patrol agents have a difficult job. It’s amazing what they do and how they do it. This bipartisan legislation will create a consistent and reliable pay system within the Border Patrol that these agents can rely on. Creating a 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. I applaud my colleagues in the House for passing this common-sense, bipartisan legislation,” said Chaffetz. This 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 the Congressional Budget Office. S. 1691 was cosponsored by Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John McCain (R-AZ) and unanimously passed the Senate earlier this year. Watch Congressman Chaffetz speak on the House floor about Border Pay Reform here. Background The Border Patrol pay system – established almost 40 years ago – is different from the system covering other federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or Secret Service. In 2013 a report was 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. The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act will 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. The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act is strongly endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and Border Patrol Agents nationwide. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=3e3ad4d1-8a4d-423c-8ca6-9aec59beef8f,"Bennet, Hatch Propose a Streamlined Pathway for Approval of Antibiotics",2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) today introduced a bill to create a new drug approval pathway to streamline access and encourage innovation and development of potentially lifesaving antibiotic drugs for patients, particularly Veterans who have encountered antibiotic-resistant bacteria while overseas. “Antibiotic-resistant bacteria pose serious and unique challenges to health care professionals,” Bennet said. “This bill will allow new antibiotics that show promise combating these bacteria to reach patients more quickly and save lives. It will also encourage bioscience companies to invest in innovative research to develop these lifesaving drugs.”  “By addressing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we can make major strides in preventing a significant number of illnesses and deaths in the United States,” Senator Hatch said. ""I am excited to build on the progress we have made. The PATH Act is needed to spur the innovation of new antibiotics and give patients with unmet medical needs access to important antibiotics faster.” “Superbugs”—or bacteria that are substantially resistant or unresponsive to any existing and available antibiotic—are an increasingly urgent public health threat, both at home and abroad. While antibiotic resistance continues to cost tens of thousands of lives in the United States each year, less than ten new antibiotics have made it to market since 2000. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is also a significant concern to our troops, affecting more than a third of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, according to the Department of Defense. In an effort to address some of the significant regulatory obstacles facing antibiotic development and hindering patient and veteran access, the Promise for Antibiotics and Therapeutics for Health (PATH) Act would permit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to accelerate an antibacterial drug’s approval for an identifiable, limited patient population upon determining that the drug treats a serious or life-threatening condition and addresses an unmet need. In addition, the bill requires a drug’s label to include special designation from FDA indicating their intended use in limited, high-risk populations approved under this pathway. The bill also calls for further guidance and potential expansion to other appropriate therapeutic areas.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a81d8869-b3a4-4850-80a4-e39774fe61b9,"Harkin, Alexander, Hagan, Hatch Praise Senate Passage of Bipartisan Bill to Enhance Life-Saving Newborn Screening Programs",2014-12-09,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 9 – Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and HELP Committee members Sens. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) today praised unanimous passage in the Senate of the bipartisan Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act. “Today I am pleased the Senate moved forward with this critical bill to invest in healthy families. Newborn screening programs play an essential role in the early detection and treatment of conditions that affect newborns. This bipartisan bill will ensure that infants and families get timely, accurate screenings,” Harkin said. “By supporting states, this legislation will help them to improve their newborn screening programs and assist pediatricians and other providers with finding and treating any medical conditions at the earliest possible time. For families around the country, these screening programs save lives and I thank Senators Hagan and Hatch for their tireless efforts to move this important bill forward.” “The legislation passed by the Senate today will improve life-saving screenings for nearly 80,000 infants born in Tennessee every year—as well as ensure that parents and doctors have the information and resources they need to keep the newborns in their care as safe as possible,” Alexander said.“Senator Hatch and Senator Hagan have done great work with this bill, and I look forward to the House quickly taking up and passing this important legislation.”  “I am so pleased that the Senate came together to reauthorize these critical programs and ensure more infants have the chance to lead a full and healthy life,” said Hagan, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families. “As a mom and a grandmother, I know that parents have no greater concern than their children’s health, and today, no family should suffer because a treatable condition was left undetected at birth. I hope the House will move swiftly to approve this bill that will give states the resources to improve their newborn screening programs, and ensure that babies with serious or even fatal conditions get the care and treatment they need right when they’re diagnosed at birth.” “When I first sponsored this bill in 2008, we created national newborn screening guidelines and helped improve comprehensive newborn screening in every state,” Hatch said. “Today, I’m proud that 30 more states treat at least 29 of 31 treatable core conditions. Reauthorizing this program means that newborns will have a better shot at dealing with these conditions thanks to early diagnosis. I’m pleased to support it once again."" The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act, introduced by Sens. Hagan and Hatch, would reauthorize federal programs and grants that assist states with improvements to their newborn screening programs—including ensuring quality laboratory equipment and surveillance for newborn screening. The legislation also supports states in related education programs for parents and health-care providers and continues the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, which determines which newborn screening tests should be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel. The screening panel serves as a reference for states in determining which conditions to screen for in their respective newborn screening programs. Approximately one in every 300 newborns in the United States has a condition that can be detected through screening, according to the March of Dimes.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a780999d-1490-4257-8829-1fe581cc9614,Hatch Statement on the Orion Launch,2014-12-05,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the most senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement regarding the Orion launch: “The Orion launch is a major step towards deep-space exploration that is long overdue. Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon reawakened our natural pioneer spirit, inspiring generations of scientists and engineers to push the frontiers of human existence. That legacy is alive and well today. I'm proud that the abort launch motor and other integral components involved in this launch were built in Utah and I hope Utahns will continue to play a key role as Americans journey to the stars and beyond.”  Senator Hatch has been active in Congress’s efforts to keep U.S. space travel alive, authoring payload requirements for a heavy-lift Space Launch System in the 2010 NASA bill and working with NASA administrators in Utah to maintain the state’s role in building the abort launch motors, heat shields, engine nozzles and other parts required for these spacecrafts.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=dca7e122-3b0c-4674-adfb-eee658335b3a,Hatch Lauds Senate Passage of Bill to End Social Security Benefits for Nazis,2014-12-05,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC - Today, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) praised Senate passage of a bipartisan, bicameral bill to terminate Social Security benefits for Nazi persecutors.  Hatch introduced the Senate version of the bill, the No Social Security for Nazis Act, in November.  The legislation closes a loophole in the current law that allows persecutors to receive benefits.  The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent last night. “I am proud the Senate spoke in unison and passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion,” said Hatch.  “It’s outrageous that Nazi war criminals and anyone who participated in Nazi persecution atrocities continue to collect Social Security benefits while living abroad. With the President’s signature, this will stop once and for all.” Additional Senate cosponsors include Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Dan Coats (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Enzi (R-WY),  Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). In early December, Hatch and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), pressed the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department for statistics in areas including the total number of Nazi suspects who received Social Security benefits after leaving the United States, how many suspected Nazis currently receive Social Security benefits and live outside the country, information on the potential outcome of certain identified cases, and details of interaction between the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department on the issue.   Text of the legislation and bill summary information is available by clicking here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/stewart-votes-to-nullify-the-president-s-recent-immigration-executive,Stewart Votes to Nullify the Presidents Recent Immigration Executive Action,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of the Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014, which passed the House. This bill nullifies the president’s recent immigration executive action and reaffirms the constitutional principles that only Congress has the power to write immigration laws and that the President’s role is to enforce existing laws. “This is an important bill that reaffirms the roles of the branches of government as envisioned by our founding fathers,” Stewart said. ""The Constitution is clear — it’s Congress’ responsibility to write the law and the president’s job is to simply enforce those laws. We must prevent President Obama, and future presidents, from abusing their authority through immigration executive orders. This bill does just that. Now is the time for the Senate to act and I urge my Senate colleagues to take up this important piece of legislation."" Specifically this bill: Prevents President Obama or any future president from exempting or deferring the removal of categories of unlawful aliens except to the extent that the president is relying on his constitutional powers over foreign affairs or utilizing exceptions provided for in the bill for exceptional humanitarian and law enforcement circumstances Prevents President Obama or any future president from considering such aliens to be lawfully present in the United States (and thus ineligible for the rights and privileges available to lawfully present aliens) Prevents President Obama or any future president from granting work authorization to such aliens Takes effect as if enacted on November 20, 2014, thus nullifying the president’s recent executive action Full text of the bill can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=1654e9c8-5421-4df0-8a75-506707caf354,Op-ed: Hatch: Air Forces Utah test range needs to expand,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The Utah Test and Training Range at Hill Air Force Base (UTTR) provides essential resources and capabilities for the United States Air Force. Here, our service members prepare and learn to adapt to constantly evolving foreign threats by training with the latest ""fifth-generation"" weapons systems. The F-22 Raptor and the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are among the critical systems that utilize the UTTR. But these new weapons, which are more sophisticated and are steadily entering into operational use, require greater capacity than what the UTTR has provided over the last 60 years. To retain these important weapons systems in Utah, we need an expansion that maintains public access and upgrades the UTTR. The long-term viability of the UTTR and Hill Air Force Base — one of Utah’s largest employers — depends on it. I have spent much of the last year working on a proposal that will improve the UTTR’s capabilities with minimal effect on land use and access to the land surrounding the range.  But there’s more here for Utahns than the obvious military and defense benefits: The UTTR improvement proposal will also add additional resources and revenue to our public school system by enabling the transfer of certain federal lands from the Bureau of Land Management into the state-owned school trust lands system. In the West Desert, state-owned land is managed through the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), whose charter is to develop revenue from managed lands for Utah’s public education system. Since 1994, SITLA has generated more than $1.4 billion for Utah’s public schools, and has worked to grow Utah’s permanent funds from $84 million to just under $2 billion.  Revenue generated from school trust lands through responsible development is transferred into the Permanent School Fund, a perpetual endowment that distributes income annually to each K-12 public and charter school in Utah. Through the UTTR improvement proposal, the state Legislature and SITLA could begin the process of consolidating state-owned school trust lands into revenue-generating blocks of land elsewhere in the West Desert. This would add millions of new dollars to be distributed to Utah’s public schools.  While the Obama administration has done much to stifle economic development and productive use of public lands, this proposal would protect mineral development in the areas near the UTTR in the West Desert. I remain committed to help development and economic production throughout the state. I look forward to continued discussions about this proposal with fellow Utahns. I am confident that we can provide the tools to meet our national security needs, generate additional funding for Utah’s public schools and protect Utahns’ access and ability to use public lands surrounding the UTTR.  You can read more and offer your own comments on my website at (hatch.senate.gov/uttr). We are still fine tuning the proposal based on feedback we receive to ensure that Utahns can continue to enjoy our western way of life while helping our armed forces defend it. This op-ed appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune on December 4, 2014.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=0c9d6b02-7568-4fe4-b0e6-b9f8d689b139,Hatch Welcomes Title Transfer of the Strawberry Valley Project Electric Distribution System,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the most senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement regarding the title transfer of the Strawberry Valley Project electric distribution system from the federal government to the South Utah Valley Electric Service District:  “I am pleased we have reached the final step in transferring this important piece of land from the federal government to the SESD. I commend my colleagues in the Utah delegation, particularly Representative Chaffetz, for their efforts throughout the long process on this project. This title transfer will grant authority to local leaders that are already managing these assets, rather than federal bureaucrats. Those on the ground will be able to run the system in a way that’s best for local power users. This is an important victory for South Utah County and for the State of Utah."" Senator Hatch has been actively involved with the South Utah Valley Electric Service District issue, having sponsored the Senate version of the bill in 2010 and 2012, and seen it through to President Obama’s desk to sign last July.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=750a5957-08e0-4a77-95ba-5806a7f3ffa7,"Bennet, Hatch Introduce Bill to Cut Red Tape, Boost Innovation in Health IT",2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) today introduced a bill to cut red tape at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and help boost innovation in health IT. The Medical Electronic Data Technology Enhancement for Consumers’ Health (MEDTECH) Act would exempt low-risk medical software and mobile apps from FDA regulation and provide greater certainty regarding what software will be regulated by the agency to protect consumers. “New and innovative technology is helping our health care providers better take care of their patients, and it’s putting tools into the hands of families that help them manage their own health,” Bennet said. “Some of these tools, whether a new app to track your calorie intake or an activity tracker to help you while you exercise, are low risk and don’t require in-depth oversight by the government. This bill provides certainty for innovators in the life sciences and the FDA as to which devices and software should be monitored to keep consumers safe.” “Advances in technology have allowed us to continuously improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare,” Hatch added. “This bill will give innovators the certainty they need about health IT regulation to continue pioneering medical software for consumers and health care professionals. I’m proud to offer this important piece of legislation alongside Senator Bennet."" The MEDTECH Act takes a risk-based approach and builds upon a Food and Drug Administration Safety Innovation Act Workgroup report released earlier this year. The report was commissioned by Bennet and Hatch through an amendment to the 2012 FDA reform law. Specifically, the bill limits and clarifies the FDA’s role regarding regulation of administrative and financial software, wellness and lifestyle products, certain aspects of electronic health records, and software that aids health care providers in developing treatment recommendations for their patients. As the rate of innovation rapidly increases in the medical technology field, this bill provides greater clarity to ensure that businesses understand the rules of the road and safe and effective products reach consumers as soon as possible.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397674,House and Senate Reach Agreement on FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act,2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—The House of Representatives and U.S. Senate released the final draft of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) served as  a House negotiator, working with Senate counterparts on some of the key terms of the agreement. Among other things, the FY2015 legislation includes additional funding for our nation’s military depots, prevents the transfer of Apache helicopters from the National Guard to the Army, includes funding to support the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, and includes a one year prohibition on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) proceedings. “This bill does some good things for our national defense capabilities. However, the nature of a negotiation is that compromises have to be made and, in the end, nobody walks away completely satisfied,” said Congressman Bishop.  “I am especially pleased that this legislation includes funding for our nation’s Depots, like the Ogden Air Logistics Complex, which provides key maintenance and logistical support for our nation’s warfighter and other weapon systems,” said Congressman Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397675,Obamas Use of Antiquities Act Would Cut Coloradans out of the Legislative Process,2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— The Obama Administration announced this week that Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Deputy Director Steve Ellis will visit the Browns Canyon area of Colorado on Saturday, December 06, 2014. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman-elect Rob Bishop (UT-01) raised concerns that this visit may signal the Administration’s intention to use the controversial Antiquities Act to create a new national monument, usurping the power of the legislative process, and subsequently depriving Coloradans of the opportunity to have their voices heard. “The President’s use of the Antiquities Act would unjustly deprive the communities surrounding Browns Canyon of the opportunity to debate the proposed monument through the open legislative process. I hope Chief Tidwell and Deputy Director Ellis take this into consideration during their visit,” said Bishop. Nearly 22,000 acres located within this region are the subject of legislation introduced by Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet that would establish a new national monument. Despite a Democrat majority in the Senate, the two Democrat Senators have been unsuccessful in their efforts to gain enough support to move the bill. As a result, they have appealed to President Obama to designate the new national monument by executive fiat using the Antiquities Act. “The inability of two Democrat Senators to garner support for this initiative despite a Democrat majority is hardly justification for robbing Coloradans of the opportunity to have their voices heard. They have referred to the term ‘gridlock’ when explaining why their bill has languished but evidence suggests there are other issues at fault. Lack of support is certainly one of them,” Bishop added. Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) introduced legislation in the 113th Congress that would require the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) whenever the Antiquities Act is used by the President to establish a new national monument greater than 5,000 acres.  Application of NEPA would ensure that the American people have an opportunity to participate in the national monument designation process.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397676,Bishop Offers Support for Key Provisions Included in NDAA,2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—House Natural Resources Committee Chairman-elect Rob Bishop (UT-01) released the following statement in support of many of the natural resources provisions included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). “The natural resources provisions included in the NDAA bring resolution to multi-year legislative efforts that seek to establish new opportunities for energy production, mineral development, job creation, grazing, recreation, conservation, and other secondary economic benefits. They have unnecessarily languished in the Senate for two years as a result of the Senate’s inaction on most natural resources bills. For many western states like Utah, jobs, education, and economic development depend upon the multiple use of our lands. As a westerner, I can attest to the inherent need for these policies to become law. The nature of a compromise is that everyone gets something, but nobody gets everything they want. Conservation can be utilized as currency and in this bill, it enabled us to convey over 100,000 acres out of the federal estate and bring economic development, jobs, and education funding to states that need it most.” Congressman Bishop cited the following as key natural resources provisions included in the NDAA: CONVEYING LAND OUT OF FEDERAL OWNERSHIP, JOB CREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ·         Designates 245,000 acres of wilderness, which have strong local and Congressional support, are balanced with conveyances of land out of the federal estate, new opportunities for energy production, mineral development, grazing, recreation, and economic development for public lands states.  In addition, nearly half of the wilderness acres are already managed by the federal government as if it were wilderness due to status as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) or roadless area ·         Releases 26,000 acres of current wilderness study areas to multiple use Conveys 110,000 acres of land out of federal ownership for economic and community development 1,518 acres of federal land to the Olgoonik Corporation and Alaska Native-owned village corporation 70,075 acres of federal land to Sealaska, an Alaska Native corporation 31 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land conveyed to Idaho County, Idaho for a shooting range 10,000 acres of land managed by the BLM to the City of Yerington, Nevada to facilitate the Nevada Copper operation at Pumpkin Hollow which is projected to produce more than 800 construction and mining jobs. A University of Nevada Cooperative Extension study noted the mining operation should also create almost 4,400 indirect jobs in Northern Nevada. 1,329 acres of land managed the BLM to the city of Carlin, Nevada Federal land and a reversionary interest managed by BLM to Storey County, Nevada 275 acres of land managed by the BLM to Elko County, Nevada for a motocross park 400 acres of federal land to the Secretary of the Navy to develop new housing at Naval Air Station Fallon 19 acres of federal land to a private land owner in San Juan County, NM 80 acres of National Forest Service land to Brigham Young University for Y Mountain 100 acres of National Forest Service Land to Fruit Heights, Utah for a much-needed community cemetery Two parcels conveyed by the Department of Energy to the State of Washington Federal land conveyed by the Department of Agriculture land at Ranch A to the State of Wyoming Authorization of a land exchange between the U.S. Geological Survey and School District 318 in Minnesota ·         Enhances of programs to raise private funding for National Parks, such as donor recognition programs and the issuance of a commemorative coin to recognize the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016 EXPANSION OF MULTIPLE-USE ON FEDERAL LANDS Amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPLMA) to grant federal land management agencies with needed authorities to renew and process grazing permits and leases on more than 200 million acres of public rangeland Authorizes the Department of Interior to hold live internet auctions for onshore oil and gas lease sales Designates a limited number of new park units that have strong local support Updates the fee schedule and rates for recreational cabins so that owners are not forced to tear down cabins that reside within national forests EXPANSION OF ENERGY AND MINERAL PRODUCTION, JOB CREATION ·         Extends and expands the successful BLM permit streamlining pilot project. The program will be extended nationwide to improve the efficiency of the approval process, which will ultimately increase oil and gas production from federal lands; Expanding the previous pilot project will address permitting delays that have held up energy production and slowed the growth of jobs on federal lands ·         Facilitates several proposed mineral development projects, including the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world         Resolution Copper in Arizona will lead to: 3,000 construction jobs over a six-to-ten year period. Over 3,700 high-paying jobs once the mine is fully operational. A total economic impact on the state of Arizona estimated over $61.4 billion, over $1 billion per year. Nearly $20 billion in federal, state, county and local tax revenue. ·         Conveys federal land to the Nevada Copper operation at Pumpkin Hollow will produce more than 800 construction and mining jobs.  A University of Nevada Cooperative Extension study noted the mining operation should also create almost 4,400 indirect jobs in Northern Nevada. ·         Approves a swap of coal mineral rights between the federal government, a private mineral rights holder, and Montana’s Northern Cheyenne Tribe consolidates land into trust in the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, transfer into trust tribally owned sacred lands, and settle claims brought by the Tribe against the United States   PROTECTS TRIBAL INTERESTS Settles Northern Cheyenne’s claims against the federal government for failing to take the subsurface estate under its reservation into trust This bill fixes a mistake made in 1900, when the government expanded the Northern Cheyenne reservation but failed to acquire the underlying minerals Settles land claims for the Sealaska Native Corp Conveys federal property to an Alaska Native village for economic development Provides access and protection for cultural resources and traditional uses at Oak Flat and Apache Leap in Superior, Arizona PROTECTS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Ensures private property interests are fully protected in all special land designations Protects all private activities taking place outside of the special land designations Ensures no private property can be condemned, and prevents acquisitions through eminent domain Prohibits buffer zones and protective perimeters",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/national-debt-passes-18-trillion-stewart-urges-house-colleagues-to-act,"National Debt Passes $18 Trillion, Stewart Urges House Colleagues to Act",2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – With the national debt now surpassing $18 Trillion — over $153,000 of debt per American taxpayer — Rep. Chris Stewart (R–Utah) delivered a speech on the House Floor, urging his congressional colleagues to help restore fiscal responsibility by reforming the tax code, balancing the budget, reforming entitlement spending, and holding the president and his federal agencies accountable for taxpayer’s money. “Now is the time to restore fiscal sanity,” Stewart said. “We must reclaim that moral and fiscal discipline which created the American Dream so many years ago. We must undergo real tax reform, reign in entitlement spending, balance our budgets and hold the President and his federal agencies accountable for the people’s money. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight to restore fiscal stability."" The video of the speech can be found HERE. The full text of the speech is below: ""I am discouraged to stand here and announce a milestone that we reached recently, a very discouraging milestone. Our nation has now surpassed $18 Trillion in debt. And if you want to know how much money that is, take every American taxpayer from the young man who just got his first job, to every mother and father who are struggling to take care of their families and give them a bill of more than $150,000."" ""It’s simply unsustainable. If we continue down this current path, we will commit fiscal national suicide through our spending and our debt."" ""Remember that a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the security of its people. A nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the needy among them.  A nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the children of the next generation. Now is the time to restore fiscal sanity."" ""We must have the courage to reclaim the American Dream. We must undergo real tax reform, entitlement reform and balance our budgets. We must have the courage to make these a reality."" ""We can fix this, and we must fix this. I hope we will have the courage to do this, even if it is hard. And with that Mr. Speaker, I yield back.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-passage-of-the-tax-increase-prevention-act-of-2014,Stewart Statement on Passage of the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014,2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, which passed the House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote of 378-46. This bill renews about 50 individual and business tax benefits which have expired in the past year. Stewart released the following statement after the passage of the bill: “The most important goal here is to prevent a tax increase on Americans, and this bill does that. There are unfortunately a number of provisions I would not have supported on their own, but we vote on what is before us, and it simply didn’t make sense to allow a massive tax increase to occur. I’m very hopeful the new Republican majority in the Senate next year will give us the chance to do meaningful tax reform that simplifies the tax code and lowers tax rates both for individuals and business.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=072605f8-6558-480a-89c1-1cc45b4e1e53,"Hatch Announces Co-Sponsorship of the Regulatory Accountability Act, Highlights Commonsense Regulatory Reform As Priority for Next Congress",2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Senator Orrin Hatch, the most senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement after co-sponsoring the Regulatory Accountability Act: “Regulatory reform has been a priority since my early days in the Senate, and I’m pleased to add my support to the Regulatory Accountability Act. This legislation provides much-needed relief to individuals and businesses by restoring regulatory transparency, requiring evidence-based rulemaking, and ensuring that agencies conduct cost-benefit analysis for the new burdens they seek to impose. This bill represents exactly the sort of commonsense, bipartisan legislation that we should pursue in the next Congress. I applaud the work of Senator Rob Portman and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte on this bill. For too long we have simply talked about regulatory reform — the time for action is now.” Senator Hatch has played a key role in every major regulatory reform effort in the past 38 years, including as an original cosponsor of the 1981 Regulatory Reform Act and an author of the 1995 Comprehensive Regulatory Reform  Act, while serving as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In major addresses at the Reagan Ranch in October and at the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention in November, Senator Hatch discussed his regulatory reform agenda and identified the Regulatory Accountability Act as a top priority for the incoming 114th Congress. LINK- Senator Hatch Speaks at the Reagan Ranch LINK- Senator Hatch Speaks to the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chairman-elect-chaffetz-announces-staff-director-senior-staff-appointments-house,"Chairman-elect Chaffetz Announces Staff Director, Senior Staff Appointments at House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform",2014-12-02,2014,2014-12,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://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397672,Bishop Statement on Report Analyzing Transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Utah,2014-12-02,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—The Utah State Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) officially released its report titled “An Analysis of a Transfer of Federal Lands to the State of Utah,” which examines whether or not it is feasible for the State of Utah to take control of nearly 31 million acres of federal land. The report, conducted by third party experts from the University of Utah, Utah State University, and Weber State University, determined that the State of Utah is financially capable of assuming all responsibility for the 31 million acres. In addition, the report found that transfer of management from federal to state would likely result in a net economic benefit for the State of Utah. Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Chairman-elect of the House Natural Resources Committee issued the following statement in response to the report: “I want to thank the PLPCO and the team of experts who carefully and thoughtfully considered the feasibility of the transfer of federal lands to the State of Utah. The findings of this report confirm that the state is more than capable of taking on the management of these lands. This data will be a helpful resource as we continue to work toward resolving some of the biggest challenges facing public lands policy in the state,” said Bishop.    In 2012, the Utah State Legislature passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act [H.B. 148], which requires the federal government to transfer approximately 31.2 million acres of federal land to the State of Utah. Following the passage of H.B. 148, the Utah State Legislature passed H.B. 142, which directed the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office to analyze all economic factors associated with a transfer of federal land to the state. After 18 months of research, the PLPCO and the team of experts who facilitated the study produced a report found here. A summary of the report can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397671,IN THE NEWS: Feds have sunk $65M into stalled Eisenhower memorial never built,2014-11-27,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"By Drew Johnson The Washington Times read online here A memorial planned to honor one of the great American leaders of the 20th century has instead become a monument to government waste. In 1999 Congress authorized building a Washington memorial to honor Dwight D. Eisenhower for his service as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II and his guidance of the country as its 34th president. Fifteen years later the project has already cost American taxpayers more than $65 million. And quarrels between the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission on the one hand and Congress and the Eisenhower family on the other hand mean that there's a real possibility that no memorial will ever be built and the money will have gone for naught. The commission, the body in charge of the memorial's ""nature, design, construction and location,"" previously devoured $41 million of the funds and is on pace to spend the rest of the $65 million allotment from Congress without ever building a monument. Some members of the commission — which is composed of four citizens appointed by the president, four members of the House of Representatives and four senators — are now lobbying for an additional $50 million in taxpayer funding. Bruce Cole, a member of the commission who has been critical of the spending, calls the process behind the Eisenhower memorial ""the classic definition of a Washington boondoggle."" The final cost of the monument is now estimated to reach $150 million. In contrast, the Lincoln Memorial cost $47 million to build, adjusted for inflation, according to research by the National Civic Art Society. The expansive Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial, with five water features, four open-air ""rooms"" and numerous statues and sculptures spread across nearly 8 acres, cost a comparatively modest $65 million. For taking $65 million from the pockets of taxpayers with absolutely nothing to show for it, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission has been awarded the Golden Hammer, a weekly mark of shame for egregious examples of wasteful spending of tax dollars. Celebrity architect Rampant spending and interminable delays associated with the monument are rooted in the commission's decision to award the memorial's design contract to celebrated avant-garde architect Frank Gehry. The selection of Mr. Gehry's design was fraught with issues, including special treatment for the celebrity architect, a House Committee on Natural Resources majority staff report about the project found. The report's authors determined that Mr. Gehry may have been improperly chosen to design the memorial because his submission failed to meet Congress and the commission's original aesthetic goals. Today, eight years after the original design criteria were established, Mr. Gehry's plan still fails to meet them. A design jury that evaluated the design proposals even recommended against accepting Mr. Gehry's proposal. His design was chosen, nonetheless, partially because ""the factors used to select the designer were weighted in a way that benefited a well-known designer such as Gehry,"" according to the report. The chairman of the commission, Rocco C. Siciliano, who served as a special assistant to President Eisenhower, declined to speak on the record, citing ill health. Carl Reddel, a retired Air Force general who serves as the commission's executive director, said Mr. Gehry was the ideal choice for a designer of the Eisenhower memorial given the president's ""international constituency."" ""Frank Gehry is the most celebrated architect in the world,"" Mr. Reddel said, adding that the name will appeal to ""many different stakeholders nationally and internationally"" such as ""people from WWII ally countries and early NATO members."" John S.D. Eisenhower, the president's son, who died late last year, requested that his father be remembered ""with an Eisenhower Square that is a green open space with a simple statue in the middle, and quotations from his most important sayings."" Design criticism Mr. Gehry's design, however, ignores these wishes. The architect's colossal proposal features a series of 80-foot-tall stone and steel columns that a member of the National Capital Planning Commission said looked like something out of the ""latter scenes of 'Planet of the Apes.'"" The columns would hold massive metal tapestries ""composed of multiple 3-foot-by-15-foot panels featuring twisted, bent and welded stainless steel wiring"" that ""when hung together, depict barren trees that are intended to depict the plains of Kansas,"" according to the Committee on Natural Resources report. Opponents of the design fear the columns could obstruct views of the nearby Capitol, and the metal tapestries would require costly maintenance and have to be replaced occasionally. Members of the Eisenhower family oppose the metal tapestries because they ""would be a literal 'iron curtain' and are evocative [of] Cold War era Communist iconography,"" the report claims. John S.D. Eisenhower believed ""the scope and scale of [Mr. Gehry's design] is too extravagant and it attempts to do too much. On the one hand it presumes a great deal of prior knowledge of history on the part of the average viewer. On the other, it tries to tell multiple stories. In my opinion, that is best left to museums."" Susan Eisenhower, the president's granddaughter, testified to Congress that her family ""thinks the design is flawed in concept and overreaching in scale."" Against the Eisenhower family's wishes, the commission paid Mr. Gehry's firm $16.4 million for the design and went to work shoehorning the massive memorial in a small plaza just south of the National Mall, across the street from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. A public outcry about the memorial's size and design, as well as concern over the commission's apparent disregard for the Eisenhower family's wishes, however, have ground the project to a halt. ""Even the memorials we now regard as great today didn't have unanimous support in their day,"" said Victoria Tigwell, the deputy executive director at the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Federal regulations prevent a construction project from beginning until all funding is in place. The rule is a safeguard against projects sitting half-finished for years. In order for that funding threshold to be met, the commission needs to raise another $85 million. Congressional indifference The commission is currently seeking $50 million in additional public funding from Congress, but federal lawmakers want nothing to do with spending more tax dollars on Mr. Gehry's controversial monument design. The current design for the Eisenhower Memorial is a ""rare exception where there is true bipartisan agreement,"" said Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society. ""Democrats don't want it; Republicans don't want it. It doesn't have a single champion in Congress."" The House of Representatives voted earlier this year to withhold any additional funding for the monument during the 2015 fiscal year. It appears that any additional federal money for the project is unlikely unless the design is changed to something more reflective of the Eisenhower family's vision for the memorial. ""Would [critics] rather see no Eisenhower memorial at all than have this one?"" asked Ms. Tigwell. ""The fear is that the commission will spend down all its remaining appropriated money on the Gehry design, and the worst will happen: No fitting memorial to a great American and no will to start over,"" said Mr. Cole, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Fundraising difficulties In addition to hoping for another $50 million in tax dollars from Congress, the commission planned to raise $35 million from private donors to underwrite a portion of the memorial's construction costs. The commission spent $1.2 million on a consulting firm to help raise private funds. To date, those efforts have resulted in just $448,000 in donations. Still, Mr. Reddel remains optimistic about raising money for the project. ""As [potential donors] find out how Gehry is bringing the heathland to the capital, we believe we will be able to raise the additional private funding,"" Mr. Reddel said. ""According to federal regulation, many more dollars — in the neighborhood of $80 million — will have to be in place before a single shovel of earth can be turned,"" Mr. Cole points out. ""All this money has to come from the taxpayers' pockets because, in over a decade, the commission has raised less than $500,000 in private donations."" Critics claim that the controversy surrounding the monument has made the project toxic for foundations, corporations and wealthy individuals who would typically help to bankroll such an endeavor. In October, a small group of commissioners met and agreed to slightly alter Mr. Gehry's design, including removing two of the metal tapestries and eliminating several of the columns in order to make the monument less obtrusive. Thus far, those changes have failed to make Mr. Gehry's design any more palatable for the Eisenhower family, members of Congress and potential donors. ""There is no way that any version of the [Gehry] design will ever get funded,"" Mr. Shubow said. In the meantime, taxpayers are still being forced to spend $1 million a year funding the nine-person staff that oversees the day-to-day operations of the commission. ""From its K Street aerie, the Eisenhower Memorial Commission staff is wasting yet more money pushing Frank Gehry's bizarre design — something that Congress has refused to fund and that has already cost the public north of $40 million dollars, with no end in sight,"" Mr. Cole said. Mr. Cole and Mr. Shubow both think a fitting memorial that conforms with the wishes of Eisenhower's family can be designed and built with the approximately $24 million the commission has yet to burn through. © Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c961019d-b1a7-477d-8a8d-ac794257c2e6,Hatch Rebukes EPA for Costly New Regulations,2014-11-26,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, the most senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement on the EPA’s release of new regulations on the eve of Thanksgiving: “The EPA's plan to implement this costly regulation comes at a time when Americans are already suffering under the weight of nearly $2 trillion in regulatory burdens, the highest in our nation’s history. Rather than pile on additional, unwarranted regulations like this one, we ought to focus instead on reducing outdated and unnecessary rules, as well as ensuring that the benefits of future regulations outweigh their costs. I’m committed to advancing such reforms in the next Congress, which will allow America’s economy to thrive once again.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=049c6ed8-b5fe-41c1-90b2-1d35b3377693,MEDIUM: Will the New Congress Pass a Tech Agenda? Orrin Hatch Says Yes.,2014-11-25,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force and former chairman and current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke to Steven Levy, editor in chief of Backchannel, the tech hub at Medium. Senator Hatch discussed his tech and innovation priorities for the 114th Congress, including taking on patent trolls, protecting Americans’ privacy through the LEADS Act, and high-skilled immigration reform.  The article can be found here.  A few select quotes are below:   On Patent Trolls: You take the patent troll legislation—we had that done. But the Democrats threw the high-tech community under the bus because the trial lawyers raised such a fuss with them. [The lawyers] hated my provision, because if they put my provision in on that particular bill, they couldn’t get away with what they wanted to get away with. To have an effective bill you have to include mandatory fee-shifting [meaning that if a patent troll loses a case, it must pay legal fees], heightened discovery standards, and a mechanism to enable recovery of fees against shell companies. It won’t work without having all of those provisions in. It’s inexcusable to have these patent trolls that bring this litigation against small companies, let alone big companies, and they do it with shell corporations—if they lose, they never have to pay anything, anyway. It costs up to two million bucks to defend one of these things. There is so much momentum behind this bill. Obama claims that he wants it and he wants a win in this. I think we can give it to him but it’s going to be hard. On Protecting Data Privacy through the LEADS Act:  I want to give credit to Chris Coons and Dean Heller who are with me on this. The LEADS Act begins a discussion on the complex and important issue surrounding data privacy in the digital age. The confidentiality of business data and electronic communications and their protection from arbitrary government seizure are really of the upmost importance. In order for our U.S. companies to achieve their full potential, for our nation to maintain its position at the pinnacle of innovation and competitiveness, our data business records and other electronic information just have to be protected from arbitrary government intrusion. I mean we just have to. The LEADS Act is a must-pass bill next congress. It would promote trust in U.S. IT technologies worldwide and it would enable law enforcement to fulfill its public safety mission. I don’t see how anybody could be against it. On High-Skilled Immigration: The President’s executive order cannot provide a permanent solution to our country’s inadequate and outdated employment-based immigration laws. But I’m going to work really hard on getting a good immigration bill that covers the whole area. We should start with areas of widespread agreement?—?like high-skilled immigration. The I-Squared Act, which is a bipartisan immigration innovation act, addresses most if not all of the tech industry’s immigration needs. We need to increase the H1-B visas. Currently the cap is 85,000 a year. This year alone we had 172,500 submissions. That means American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers that we’ve educated.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-statement-obama-taking-executive-action-immigration,Chaffetz Statement on Obama taking Executive Action on Immigration,2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,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//media-center/press-releases/stewart-statement-on-president-obamas-immigration-executive-order,Stewart Statement on President Obama's Immigration Executive Order,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement ahead of President Obama’s immigration speech. President Obama is expected to issue an executive order tonight on immigration. ""A presidential executive order on immigration clearly goes against the powers outlined in the Constitution. As the Constitution states,  it’s Congress’ responsibility is ""to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Like most Utahns, I recognize that our immigration system is broken and must be reformed, but the President's use of executive orders and a call for amnesty isn’t the answer. Not only are his actions unconstitutional, but it goes against the will of the people and of Congress. If the president wants to reform immigration it must happen through the proper channels within Congress.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141205201907/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397668,House Natural Resources Committee Chairman-elect Rob Bishop Names Staff Director and Deputy Staff Director,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—House Natural Resources Committee Chairman-elect Rob Bishop (UT-01) today announced the appointment of Jason Knox as Staff Director and Todd Ungerecht as Deputy Staff Director for the 114th Congress. Jason Knox previously worked on the House Natural Resources Committee from 2006 to 2011.  Knox then made the transition to the Senate Budget Committee where he handled energy and environmental issues.  He most recently served as a Counsel on the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Chairman Fred Upton (MI-06). “Throughout his career, Jason has worked tirelessly to develop and advance strategic policies that improve the way our natural resources are managed and utilized. He shares my commitment to address some of the biggest challenges facing federal land management and natural resources. One of Jason’s many qualities and qualifications is his dedication as a public servant and I am confident that his experience and leadership will be instrumental to the committee and its Members,” said Chairman-elect Bishop.   Todd Ungerecht has served as senior counsel for Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings since 2010, focusing most recently on Endangered Species Act oversight and legislation.  He previously served as Congressman Hastings’ counsel on the House Ethics Committee and as a senior policy advisor for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during President George W. Bush’s administration. “Todd’s comprehensive experience as counsel and policy advisor are a valuable resource for the committee. His career demonstrates a clear commitment to some of the most important issues facing our federal lands, waters, and mineral resources. In this new role, Todd will continue to be a leader on key policy issues that impact our diverse and abundant natural resources, both onshore and offshore,” said Chairman-elect Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141205201909/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397669,Congressman Bishop Responds to Potential Amnesty Announcement from President Obama,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s administration has signaled that the President intends to announce today plans to grant some sort of legal status to more than five million people who are currently in the United States illegally. ""We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but what the President is doing is an abuse of his authority.   Like all Americans, I share a sense of compassion and understanding for families caught in these difficult circumstances, but the President's plan does not fix the problem.  He has made it worse.  We desperately need a permanent solution, not an imperfect presidential mandate done in isolation. President Obama may think it is acceptable to exceed his own authority through executive action, but our founding fathers established clearly defined powers through the Constitution. The President missed an opportunity to work with Congress and instead has created a toxic atmosphere harming future efforts.  Amnesty is not an answer and it sends the wrong message to those who are going through the legitimate immigration process.  The first thing to fix is the porous border and that is where our attention should initially be focused,"" said Congressman Rob Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141205201912/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397670,"IN THE NEWS: Our View- Bishop, Chaffetz move on up",2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"by Standard-Examiner Editorial Board view online here As expected, longtime Top of Utah representative to the U.S. House, Rob Bishop, was named chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. It’s a top-level position for Bishop, allowing him to play a major role in congressional decisions involving the Interior Department and the stewardship of public lands. Bishop is inheriting a position that his predecessor, former Rep. Jim Hansen, once held.  Another Utah U.S. representative who grabbed a big chairmanship is Jason Chaffetz. He will oversee the often-contentious House Oversight and Government Reform Commitee, which has examined, among other issues, the probe of whether the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for harassment and how the Obama administration responded to the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack that killed four Americans. In the U.S. Senate, it is expected that Utahn Orrin Hatch will chair the Senate Finance Committee. We congratulate both Bishop and Chaffetz for assuming these leadership roles and wish them, as well as Senator Hatch, the best of fortunes. All, in our opinion, have developed statesmanlike qualities during their tenures, and shown an ability to listen to opposing views and build friendships with members of the Democratic Party. Both will face the challenge of building bipartisan coalitions within their committees. In today’s rancorous political climate, statesmanship is highly valued. If Bishop and Chaffetz turn into  mouthpieces for what is popular on talk radio and within the Tea Party, they will likely not succeed as committee leaders. Bishop will have the task of finding legislative solutions that protect our natural resources while also respecting the rights of states and industries. There will be loud voices on both sides. Chaffetz inherits a committee that was led by a too-partisan leader, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Frankly, Chaffetz needs to tone down the partisan rhetoric and anger. He needs to create a committee in which both parties can achieve solutions. With topics that include the IRS scandal and Benghazi attack, that will be a tough task. But it’s important. House committees need to create positive legislation, not soundbites for cable TV news.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/stewart-house-members-urge-president-against-taking-executive-action-on,"Stewart, House Members Urge President Against Taking Executive Action on Immigration Reform",2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and 34 other members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama expressing concern about the administration’s plan to take executive action on immigration reform. Instead of signing an executive order, House members urge the President to work with Congress to reform immigration. The letter, spear-headed by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), states, “While Congress certainly understands the need for reforms to the current system, it is imperative that we work together to pass legislation that improves our immigration system, increases border security, and disincentives undocumented immigrants from illegally entering the United States.” Referring to the President’s impending executive order, Stewart said, ""a presidential executive order on immigration would clearly go against the intended powers outlined in the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it’s Congress’ responsibility is ""to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. “Like most Utahns, I recognize that our immigration system is broken and must be reformed, but the President's threat of executive orders and a call for amnesty isn’t the answer,” Stewart continued. “It goes against the will of the people and of Congress. If the president wants to reform immigration it must happen through the proper channels within Congress."" For a copy of the letter, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=0dcaf84f-1fa5-4d93-ba31-561e93374ff9,Senator Hatch Highlights Innovation Agenda for the 114th Congress,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. — Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took to the Senate floor today to identify pro-innovation policy priorities for the 114th Congress. His speech outlined a series of bipartisan legislative initiatives he will help advance early in the next congress. Below are select excerpts:  On Patent Trolls: Patent trolls – which are often shell companies that do not make or sell anything – are crippling innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy. It is estimated that abusive patent litigation costs our economy over $60 billion each year. With so much on the line, how can we afford not to act?  Yet, the current Senate did exactly that, and ignored the very real opportunity we had to follow the House of Representatives and pass bipartisan legislation that was supported by the White House. Now, there are some who argue that patent troll legislation is not necessary in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Octane Fitness and Highmark cases. Ms. Charlene Morrow and Mr. Brian Lahti, however, writing in the BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, confirm that “nothing in these cases addresses the proposed reforms to make the real parties in interest who are managing patent assertion entities responsible for fees and costs.” As these experienced practitioners acknowledge, such legislation is essential to address fee-collection concerns faced by defendants in patent litigation. One of the legislative approaches Ms. Morrow and Mr. Lahti propose is to make bonding more readily available at an early stage of litigation. It is past time that the Senate does its part.  I’m determined to make such patent reform a priority early next year, and to make sure we send the President a bill he can sign into law for the good of American innovation. On Trade Secrets:  We have made some progress in moving forward trade secret legislation. Earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on the importance of creating a private right of action for trade secret theft. And the House Judiciary Committee reported its bill, by voice vote, on September 17th.  Although we didn’t get the bill across the finish line this Congress, we are well positioned to move trade secret legislation early next year. It’s past time to enable U.S. companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court. On the Electronic Communication Privacy Act: To make matters more complicated, ECPA is silent on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. Storing digital information around the world – a practice that did not exist when ECPA became law – is now routine.  Moreover, the federal government has taken advantage of this statutory silence to apply its own standard, requiring access to data abroad if the company storing it has a presence in the United States. For that reason alone, Congress should amend the law.  That is why – together with Senators Chris Coons and Dean Heller – I introduced the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act. The LEADS Act would require a warrant when the government demands customer communications from third-party service providers. Such a warrant would only apply to data stored in the United States, unless the data is owned by a U.S. corporation, citizen, or lawful permanent resident. To provide additional protections, the bill requires courts to modify or vacate such warrants if they would require the service provider to violate the laws of a foreign country. On High Skilled Immigration: There is widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform of our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants. For too long our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics – or STEM – fields.  As a result, some of our nation’s top technology markets are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers. This is one of the principal reasons why I, together with Senators Amy Klobuchar, Marco Rubio, and Chris Coons, introduced the bipartisan Immigration Innovation (or I-Squared) Act. To date, the legislation has 26 bipartisan cosponsors. Among other things, the I-Squared Act provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract highly skilled workers and innovators. The bill also reforms fees on H-1B visas and employment-based green cards to fund a grant state-based program to promote STEM education and worker retraining. The full text, as prepared for delivery, is below:  Mr./Madam President: I rise today to emphasize the importance of keeping our technology industry at the forefront of the global economy. America has made extraordinary strides in innovation.  For decades, we have been the world’s leader in developing new technologies and advancing the Internet age.  But we are not the only nation in the hunt.  Across the globe, and particularly in China and other parts of Asia, our international competitors are working furiously to catch up.  If the United States is to enjoy continued success in the technology arena, policymakers must ensure that we have a legal and regulatory landscape that will enable our innovators to thrive. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I have been working with colleagues and stakeholders to develop an innovation agenda for the coming Congress.  Today, I would like to highlight several bipartisan initiatives we should prioritize early next year to help ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. First, Congress must act to protect America’s innovation and inventiveness.  An essential part of fostering innovation is protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. In particular, we must enact legislation to combat abusive patent litigation. Patent trolls – which are often shell companies that do not make or sell anything – are crippling innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy. It is estimated that abusive patent litigation costs our economy over $60 billion each year. With so much on the line, how can we afford not to act?  Yet, the current Senate did exactly that, and ignored the very real opportunity we had to follow the House of Representatives and pass bipartisan legislation that was supported by the White House. Why would anyone walk away from the opportunity to enact pro-innovation policies that would do so much good for our economy? It’s no secret that trial lawyers and others told the current Majority Leader not to bring patent troll reform up for a vote. And we all know that when the trial lawyers sayjump, the only answer for some of my Democratic colleagues is how high. While I am disappointed the Senate failed to act during this Congress, I intend to help ensure that we pass such legislation next year. Fortunately, combatting patent trolls is a priority for incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.  I look forward to working with them and others who are committed to making long-overdue reforms to our patent laws, including: mandatory fee shifting, heightened pleading and discovery standards, demand letter reforms, and a mechanism to enable recovery of fees against shell companies.  In addition, we must improve the quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Low-quality patents are essential to a patent troll’s business model. I am optimistic that we can reach agreement on how best to improve the patent process.  We also need a high-functioning and well-funded USPTO.  A fully funded patent office, would – at the very least – mean more and better trained patent examiners, more complete libraries of prior art, and greater access to modern information technologies to address the agency’s growing needs.  All of these improvements would lead to higher-quality patents that are granted more quickly. And the good news is we can make these changes at no cost to taxpayers since the USPTO is a fee-generating agency. Now, there are some who argue that patent troll legislation is not necessary in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Octane Fitness and Highmark cases. Ms. Charlene Morrow and Mr. Brian Lahti, however, writing in the BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, confirm that “nothing in these cases addresses the proposed reforms to make the real parties in interest who are managing patent assertion entities responsible for fees and costs.” As these experienced practitioners acknowledge, such legislation is essential to address fee-collection concerns faced by defendants in patent litigation. One of the legislative approaches Ms. Morrow and Mr. Lahti propose is to make bonding more readily available at an early stage of litigation.  I couldn’t agree more.  We must ensure that those who defend against abusive patent litigation and are awarded fees will actually get paid. Even when a patent troll structured as a shell company has no assets, there are other parties with an interest in the litigation. These parties are often intentionally beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. They stand to benefit if their plaintiff shell company forces a settlement, and are protected from any liability if they lose. It’s a win-win situation for them. And a lose-lose situation for America’s innovators. Since we cannot force parties outside a court’s jurisdiction to join in a case, we must incentivize those interested parties to do the right thing. That’s the whole purpose behind my recovery-of-award provision. Under this provision, those who are deemed interested parties may either voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction and become liable for any unsatisfied fees awarded in the case, or they may opt-out by renouncing any meaningful interest in the litigation. If interested parties stand aside and do nothing, the original plaintiff must post a bond to ensure that any shifted fees are paid. Bottom line: without such bonding measures, all defendants have is a toothless joinder provision that can be easily circumvented by bad actors with no intention of paying the court-awarded fees for their abusive lawsuits. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: fee shifting without such a recovery provision is like writing a check on an empty account. You’re purporting to convey something that isn’t there. Only fee shifting coupled with this recovery provision will stop patent trolls from litigating-and-dashing.  The House has already demonstrated that members from both sides of the aisle can come together to craft and pass commonsense legislation to combat abusive patent lawsuits.  President Obama supports such efforts.  It is past time that the Senate does its part.  I’m determined to make such patent reform a priority early next year, and to make sure we send the President a bill he can sign into law for the good of American innovation. Mr./Madam President, in addition to patent troll legislation, there is strong bipartisan, bicameral support for creating a harmonized, uniform federal standard for protecting trade secrets. Here in the Senate, Senator Chris Coons and I introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act on April 29, 2014. In the House of Representatives, Representative George Holding introduced the Trade Secrets Protection Act on July 29, 2014. Through our collective efforts, we have shed light on an often overlooked form of intellectual property. Trade secrets, such as customer lists, formulas, and manufacturing processes, are an essential form of intellectual property. Yet, trade secrets are the only form of U.S. intellectual property where misuse does not provide its owner with a federal private right of action. Currently, trade secret owners must rely on state courts or federal prosecutors to protect their rights. The multistate procedural and jurisdictional issues that arise in such cases are costly and complicated, and the Department of Justice lacks the resources to prosecute many such cases. These systemic issues put companies at a great disadvantage, since the victims of trade secret theft need to recover information quickly before it crosses state lines or leaves the country. Unfortunately, in today’s global information age, there are endless examples of how easy—and rewarding—it can be to steal trade secrets. While the maximum penalty for trade secrets theft is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, few of these thefts actually result in federal prosecutions. And while $250,000 may sound like a steep penalty, most stolen trade secrets amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits and sales. Even when thefts are prosecuted, victim companies rarely recover the full extent of their loss. We have made some progress in moving forward trade secret legislation. Earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on the importance of creating a private right of action for trade secret theft. And the House Judiciary Committee reported its bill, by voice vote, on September 17th.  Although we didn’t get the bill across the finish line this Congress, we are well positioned to move trade secret legislation early next year. It’s past time to enable U.S. companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court. Mr./Madam President, another bipartisan initiative ready for congressional action relates to our privacy laws. I speak about the need to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act—or ECPA—to require a warrant for all e-mail content within the United States and to safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access. Enacted in 1986, ECPA prohibits communications service providers from intercepting or disclosing e-mail, telephone conservations, or data stored electronically, unless such disclosure is authorized. Virtually everyone agrees that Americans should enjoy the same privacy protections in their online communications that they do in their offline communications. But Congress has not adequately updated the law since its enactment and technological developments have resulted in disparate treatment. As currently written, ECPA requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant for e-mails that are less than six months old, but only a subpoena to access older electronic communications.  Think about your own e-mail account. You might have hundreds of e-mails that you’ve received over many years. Additionally, ECPA has allowed law enforcement to access e-mail that has been opened with just a subpoena, even though a search warrant would be required for a printout of the same communication sitting on your desk. These conflicting standards should cause great concern to everyone who values personal privacy. To make matters more complicated, ECPA is silent on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. Storing digital information around the world – a practice that did not exist when ECPA became law – is now routine.  Moreover, the federal government has taken advantage of this statutory silence to apply its own standard, requiring access to data abroad if the company storing it has a presence in the United States. For that reason alone, Congress should amend the law. That is why – together with Senators Chris Coons and Dean Heller – I introduced the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act. The LEADS Act would require a warrant when the government demands customer communications from third-party service providers. Such a warrant would only apply to data stored in the United States, unless the data is owned by a U.S. corporation, citizen, or lawful permanent resident. To provide additional protections, the bill requires courts to modify or vacate such warrants if they would require the service provider to violate the laws of a foreign country. The practice of extending warrants extraterritorially presents unique challenges for a number of industries, which increasingly face a conflict between American law and the law of the countries where the electronic data is stored. Additionally, if the U.S. expects to extend its warrants extraterritorially, we should not be surprised if other countries—including China and Russia—seek to do the same for e-mails of Americans and others stored in this country. Congress must ensure that law enforcement has the tools to execute search warrants where necessary, so long as officials comply with the laws of the foreign country where the electronic data is stored. The LEADS Act also provides needed improvements to the mutual legal assistance treaty process, which are formal agreements for sharing evidence between the United States and foreign countries in international investigations. Currently, the MLAT process is slow and unreliable – sometimes taking several months to access data held by foreign jurisdictions. The Department of Justice not only needs additional funds to hire more people to handle MLAT requests, but reforms to the underlying program are needed to improve transparency and efficiency.  The legislation recognizes through a Sense of Congress that data providers should not be subject to data localization requirements.  Such requirements are incompatible with the borderless nature of the Internet, they are an impediment to online innovation, and they are unnecessary to meet the needs of law enforcement. It’s time to act to update our electronic communications privacy laws. Finally, Mr./Madam President, there is widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform of our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants. For too long our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics – or STEM – fields.  As a result, some of our nation’s top technology markets are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers. We face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. In April, for the second year in a row, the federal government reached its current H-1B quota just five days after it began accepting applications. Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas, meaning American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad, and compete internationally. This is one of the principal reasons why I, together with Senators Amy Klobuchar, Marco Rubio, and Chris Coons, introduced the bipartisan Immigration Innovation (or I-Squared) Act. To date, the legislation has 26 bipartisan cosponsors. Among other things, the I-Squared Act provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract highly skilled workers and innovators. The bill also reforms fees on H-1B visas and employment-based green cards to fund a grant state-based program to promote STEM education and worker retraining. The I-Squared Act addresses the immediate, short-term need to provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America’s STEM education.  I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today’s global economy. No doubt, a concrete legislative victory where there is already considerable consensus would help build trust and goodwill among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy. And it would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues in introducing I-Squared early next year. Mr./Madam President, as you can see there is a lot we agree on and much we can—and must—accomplish. Looking ahead to the next Congress, I intend to do everything in my power to enact pro-technology, pro-innovation policies that will ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-responds-being-selected-oversight-and-government-reform-chairman,Chaffetz Responds to Being Selected Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,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//SAB,Rep. Stewart's Bill Passes the House; Enhances Transparency and Balance at the EPA,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, the House passed Rep. Chris Stewart’s (R-Utah) bill which reforms the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) scientific advisory process. The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act makes changes to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) to enhance public participation, improve the process for selecting expert advisors, expand transparency requirements and limit non-scientific policy advice. “Through the EPA, the Obama Administration is aggressively pursuing costly regulations that impact nearly every sector of the American economy,” Stewart said. “These rules should be based on sound scientific assertions and conclusions. It’s critical that we have a balanced panel of experts operating in an open and transparent way.  This bill improves that process in key areas."" Established by Congress in 1978, the SAB plays an important role in reviewing the scientific foundation of EPA regulatory decisions, while also broadly advising the Agency on science and technology-related matters. “Ensuring that the Science Advisory Board is balanced and transparent will help instill more confidence in the EPA’s decision making process,” Stewart said. Criticisms of the current advisory process include: Many panel members publicly state strong policy preferences where they should only be providing impartial scientific reviews. According to the Congressional Research Service, almost 60 percent of the members of EPA’s standing scientific advisory panels directly received National Center for Environmental Research grants from the Agency. These advisors served as investigators for grants representing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This has resulted in many panel members reviewing their own work. Public participation is limited during most SAB meetings, and virtually no ability exists for interested parties to comment on the scope of SAB reviews. Private sector industry expertise on panels is typically minimal, and in some cases is entirely excluded, despite existing statutory requirements that membership “be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented.”    To address these shortcomings, H.R. 1422: Strengthens public participation and public comment opportunities. Improves the make-up of SAB and its sub-panels by reinforcing peer review requirements regarding balance and independence.  The bill also reduces potential conflicts of interest by requiring enhanced disclosure of members’ financial relationships relevant to board activities. Requires opportunities for dissenting panelists to make their views known. Requires communication of uncertainties in scientific findings and conclusions. Limits non-scientific policy advice and recommendations, while requiring explicit disclosure of such advice when SAB feels compelled to provide it. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, and more than 20 other outside groups have also voiced support for H.R. 1422. Co-Sponsors of the EPA Science Advisory Board Act include: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)*, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX)*, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)*, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)*, Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI)*, Rep. Steve Daines (R-MT), Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Rep. Tom Price(R-GA), Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) *Indicates Original Co-Sponsor",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141205201914/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397667,Rep. Rob Bishop Named Chairman of House Natural Resources Committee,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Today, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) announced that Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) will serve as Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee for the 114th Congress. Congressman Bishop currently serves as Chairman of the Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee. He is recognized by his colleagues in Congress for being a dedicated advocate for public lands and natural resource issues. “I am honored to have been selected to serve in this important new role at the Natural Resources Committee. As Chairman I will work to ensure that our unique and abundant federal resources are properly managed and that a fair balance is reached between conservation and multiple use.   Doc Hastings leaves big shoes to fill and I am grateful for all that he has done to advance and address natural resource policies,” said Congressman Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=dc7feae5-377b-41ed-a0f5-2b6288138b62,Senator Hatch Comments on Senates Failure to Pass Keystone Pipeline Bill,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the Senate, released the following statement on passage of the Cassidy Keystone Bill: “I am very disappointed that tonight’s vote to authorize the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline failed, though I am confident that we will win when the issue is considered again early in the next Congress. Nevertheless, the fact that the approval process has dragged on for more than six years clearly demonstrates that the federal regulatory process is broken.  Helping create jobs and getting our economy back on the right track should be at the top of Washington’s agenda, which is why pursuing regulatory reform will be one of my priorities in the coming Congress. I will continue to fight for American jobs and affordable energy in the next congress when Republicans will be in the majority.”  Senator Hatch has been a strong supporter of the Keystone pipeline, having voted in favor of every bill that has directed the President to build the pipeline. Senator Hatch has long been an advocate for increasing domestic energy production in the United States and supports an all-of-the-above approach to our nations energy development. As Chairman of the Senate Western Caucus Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senator Hatch continues to encourage the promotion of our country’s energy infrastructure and the access to and development of our vast domestic natural resources.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2e2cc06a-c070-49e9-87d6-179c16801804,Hatch Outlines Importance of Dynamic Scoring for Major Policy Reforms in Speech at American Action Forum,2014-11-17,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC – In a speech today at the American Action Forum, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called for dynamic scoring to be used to evaluate any major reform, including an overhaul of the tax code, so that the proposal’s macroeconomic effects can be fully assessed. Below is the text of Hatch’s full speech delivered today: Let me begin with a story I heard about an upstanding Utahn named Jim who recently visited a park on his way to see his friend Lisa.  Jim happens to be keen on law-and-order and was very unnerved when he observed two people in the park apparently engaged in an illegal drug deal.   After leaving the park, Jim drove to pick up Lisa, who has a strong libertarian streak.  When he arrived, Jim could barely contain himself and immediately shrieked: “Lisa, I just saw a drug deal take place in the public park, can you believe it?”    With strong indignation, Lisa cried out: “Oh my goodness, you were in a Public Park?” The story is an example of how orientation influences what we view as being important. When it comes to the effects federal spending or taxes have on the economy, views also often tend to shift depending on orientation.   Some seem oriented toward the demand side of the economy, and they focus mostly on effects of federal spending.  Others seem oriented toward the supply side of the economy, and they focus on the effects of effective marginal tax rates.  In my view, both are right: demand matters and supply matters.  What I’d like to talk about today is how we have and will, in the future, bring supply, demand, and macroeconomic analysis to bear in analyzing proposals involving significant changes in taxes, spending, and other policy matters.   To preview where I come out on these matters, I’ll note at the outset that while analysis of macroeconomic effects of proposed legislation, or what we sometimes call dynamic analysis, is challenging, it has a number of benefits.   Both Democrats and Republicans alike have acknowledged that dynamic analysis can be useful in a variety of areas. It provides valuable information that should not simply be ignored or discarded.  And, it should be used, as it has already been used, to reach budget and revenue estimates associated with major legislative proposals, including tax reform proposals.  That said, use of macroeconomic analysis in scoring and revenue estimation – sometimes called dynamic scoring – is not a panacea.  For example, when applied to tax changes, macroeconomic analysis shows positive effects from reduced marginal effective tax rates on growth in productive inputs like labor and capital.  Those effects are real and significant and they capture how a policy proposal would impact American workers and businesses. However, those effects are not a magic elixir.  While I’d like to tell you that tax cuts always more than pay for themselves, or maybe even that tax cuts cure influenza, I’m sad to have to tell you that just isn’t the case.  Nonetheless, reductions in marginal effective tax rates on labor and capital can and do have positive macroeconomic effects that cannot and should not be ignored by Congressional scorekeepers.     There are statistical studies, simulations, and cross-country comparisons that show those effects are plentiful.  It doesn’t take much effort to browse through the Tax Foundation’s website, for example, to find evidence of these positive results.  And, I’m sure that Doug, in his more productive academic days, produced numerous studies that show such effects.        Economic growth will be key to moving the economy out of the rut it has been in over the past six years.  Since the end of the recent recession in the second quarter of 2009, GDP growth has averaged only 2.3 percent, a full percentage point below the long-run average we’ve seen since 1947.  Projected over long periods, the difference in growth rates means significant differences in standards of living for future generations.  Put simply, more growth means a better future.  We also face significant underemployment in the economy.  While the top-line unemployment number has gone down, other indicators confirm significant weaknesses in the labor market.  For example, since 2009 we have an unbroken downward trend in labor force participation, which has fallen from 65.7 percent at the beginning of 2009 to rates not seen since the 1970s, like the 62.8 percent we saw in October.   Increased participation, job growth, and enhanced opportunities in labor markets come hand in hand with stronger economic growth.  Economic growth comes from growth in employment and investments leading to growth in physical, human and intangible capital, and from technological change.  Long-run growth does not come from deficit-financed government spending or redistribution.  The true drivers of economic growth, together with returns from work effort, capital formation, and innovation, get tied together in basic economic models.  Growth and other models are used by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in analyzing macroeconomic effects primarily of tax policy changes and by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in analyzing effects primarily of spending or other changes.  And the returns to work effort, capital formation, and innovation that matter, both to Americans in the actual economy and in the macroeconomic models, are after-tax returns, where effective marginal tax rates determine decisions at the margin. When we refer to a piece of legislation’s budget score, as most here know, we are talking about projected changes in budget authority or outlays that will result from the legislation.  And, revenue estimation refers to projected changes the legislation will have on federal receipts.  Of course, those changes are measured according to a “baseline,” which represents what outlays and revenues would be if we assume current law will remain in place or if we alternatively assume that some notion of current policy would hold.  What policymakers choose for a budget baseline can matter a lot, as we saw in the so-called fiscal cliff episode at the end of 2012.  In consideration of any proposed legislative change that will affect the budget, such as tax reform, policymakers need to arrive at agreement on the relevant baseline.  The work of budget scoring and revenue estimation generally involves projecting how a legislative proposal will impact the federal budget relative to whatever is the chosen baseline.  There are two basic types of scoring that vary as to how they measure or predict the effects a legislative proposal will have on the general economy.  The first, usually referred to as static scoring or conventional scoring in the case of JCT, assumes that a bill will not have any effect on important macroeconomic variables like employment, GDP, or national income.  Static scoring does often incorporate some behavioral responses to policy changes, but not general economic effects.  This is the most typical type of scoring employed by both CBO and JCT.  For many cases, like those that do not have large-scale effects on spending, tax rates, labor markets, or technology, a score with static assumptions is probably safe.  However, for large proposed changes to government spending, provisions in the tax code, or policies with significant labor force or technology effects, static scoring is downright dumb. The second type of scoring, which I mentioned previously, is what some refer to as dynamic scoring or dynamic analysis, which simply refers to budget scores and revenue estimates that include analysis of a legislative proposal’s macroeconomic effects.   Both JCT and CBO can offer macroeconomic analysis of a proposal as either supplemental information accompanying a static analysis or as the principle score of interest to policymakers.  Similar to a decision about what is to be the relevant baseline, it is up to policymakers to decide how to use results derived from macroeconomic analysis of a proposal. Now, if you listen to some people discussing static versus dynamic analysis, you’d think that dynamic analysis is to be feared and is something that has never been used, ought to be avoided, contains mysterious features, is too hard to accomplish, or involves unmanageable uncertainties.  Those views are typically overblown and, in most instances, are also downright dumb. But don’t take my word for it.  Take the word of CBO, JCT, the Social Security Actuaries, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, or the administration. All of these groups have either produced or supported and utilized dynamic analyses of large-scale policy proposals to guide decisions, acknowledging that static scores would be – to paraphrase their views – downright dumb.  Some of the debate I hear concerning use of dynamic analysis by CBO and JCT seems remarkably uninformed.  Hearing the debate, you’d sometimes think that dynamic analysis is some untested, never-before-used tool.  But, anyone paying attention knows that is not the case.  CBO and JCT have and will perform macroeconomic analysis of dynamic effects on the economy and the resulting budgetary implications of major legislative proposals.   And, not surprisingly, the Republic has survived. Take, for example, the most recent immigration proposal put forward in the Senate.  That proposal involved policies that have the potential to generate significant effects on the labor market, including employment, earnings, and the skill mix of the labor force.  Those opposing use of macroeconomic analysis in budget scoring would, if they were consistent in their arguments, say that CBO and JCT should have used static scoring, including an assumption that employment and GDP would remain fixed at values projected under current law.  But, in explaining their dynamic analysis of the immigration proposal, CBO essentially wrote that with a proposal involving such a large possible labor market impact, the use of static scoring would be, in my words, not theirs, downright dumb.  Instead, CBO and JCT produced an analysis in which many macroeconomic effects were considered, which ran counter to a strict static analysis.  And, wouldn’t you know it, the Republic survived.  In fact, the positive economic results that CBO predicted were warmly embraced by a number of Democrats.  Indeed, you can see the results of CBO’s dynamic analysis of the immigration bill touted on the White House website.   Oddly enough, these same Democrats, in other contexts, have written off dynamic scoring as some sort of fantasy used by Republicans to justify lower tax rates.  But, when the same type of analysis could be used to bolster the case for the immigration bill, they were singing off a different song sheet altogether.   Immigration reform is not the only case in which Congressional scorekeepers have provided dynamic analyses of proposed changes to federal policy.  While I don’t have time today to review them all, it does not take much effort to browse through the CBO and JCT websites to find many examples.  JCT even has a special tab on its main web-page titled Macroeconomic Analysis. The question is not whether CBO and JCT should use dynamic macroeconomic analysis.  As I have said, they have done so, can do so, and will do so.  The question is what role that analysis should play.  And, as we continue to work toward tax reform, that question becomes all the more relevant.  Once again, I want to stress that dynamic scoring is not a magic elixir that solves all of our problems when it comes to tax policy. Even if we agree to use dynamic scoring on major tax reform proposals, there are a number of questions we must consider, including: what economic models to use; what so-called parameter values to choose for things like sensitivities of labor and capital suppliers to after-tax returns on their efforts and investments; what assumptions to make about possible behavior of the Federal Reserve or foreign policymakers; and what assumptions to make about how any proposal fits with the government’s long-run budget constraint.   But, while these issues are certainly challenging, they have not prevented JCT or CBO from arriving at informative projections regarding large-scale spending or tax policy changes in the past, and they shouldn’t hinder such efforts in the future.   Macroeconomic analysis providing projections of future effects of policy changes are, of course, subject to uncertainties.  And no matter what models, parameter values, and assumptions we use, that will remain.  However, the argument that we should not use information from dynamic analysis of policy proposals because the analysis is uncertain and difficult is almost comically misguided to me.   Oddly enough, many who argue against use of macroeconomic analysis of tax proposals because of some uncertainties are the same people who argue for the embrace of point estimates from global climate-change models that are flat-out rife with uncertainties.    Go figure.  So where do I stand on use of dynamic scoring for tax policy changes?  To me, it is clear that we should continue using dynamic analysis and work with CBO and JCT to ensure that those efforts proceed and are accelerated and refined.  As with the economics profession, the work at CBO and JCT should adapt to the advancement and development of the tools of analysis used by economists.  I recall seeing a picture of Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz as they were analyzing data for use in their historic work on the Great Depression and Monetary Policy.  The picture shows the two scholars at a large table looking over a grid of data points, and they were trying to fit a trend line to the data using a long piece of string.  Well, since that time, there have been major developments in the tools that economists use, including the development of dynamic programming and computing.  Arguing against use of dynamic analysis by CBO and JCT is like harkening back to the days of fitting data with a string. I’d like to end with a brief note on what is at stake with respect to our efforts on tax reform, especially given that I believe that there is a lot of misinformation being peddled out there about dynamic scoring.   Let’s look back at JCT’s projections from its dynamic analysis of Chairman Camp’s proposal.  Of course, Chairman Camp deserves a lot of credit for putting his plan out there and showing how hard it is to engage in comprehensive tax reform, especially when constrained by static revenue neutrality and distributional neutrality.  According to JCT’s results, Chairman Camp’s plan could produce, from positive macroeconomic effects, upwards of $700 billion of revenue relative to a static analysis. If you accepted the $700 billion positive revenue effect – which was, once again, at the high end  –  and hypothetically plowed it back in for further rate reductions, you’d probably be able to lower tax rates in the various brackets by less than one percentage point.   While that would be real change with real impact on Americans, it would hardly be the supercharged supply-side miracle that many, including some on my side of the political spectrum, have argued we would see.  Don’t get me wrong, incentives, the supply side, growth, and capital formation matter.  And they matter a lot for future living standards, and cannot be ignored.  Indeed, as tax writers, we would be committing malpractice if we undertook an exercise as far-reaching as tax reform and ignore macroeconomic data.  However, especially with the type of exercise like Chairman Camp undertook, we should not expect dynamic scoring to produce outsized miracles from either the supply side or the demand side.  As always, there have been and continue to be political and economic debates about economic analysis, but that is healthy and useful.  What is not healthy is to ignore useful information or to try to bias or distort analytical work done by CBO or JCT.  And, if anyone thinks of purposefully writing legislation to distort the way bills will be scored or to dupe the American people, well…don’t get me started. Dynamic analysis of major spending, tax, regulatory, and other proposals should be valued.  It is intellectually dishonest to praise and accept such analysis for spending or labor-market related proposals like immigration, while arguing against the use of that same type of analysis when it comes to taxes.  Tax reform involves changing many margins along which Americans make important resource allocation decisions.  Dynamic analysis can help us analyze how changes in the margins, distortions, and deadweight losses will affect people, for better or worse.       That being the case, such analysis should be used with regard to tax policy changes.  We need to stay focused on what is important.  The primary goal of tax reform and analysis of any such reform must be growth in opportunities, incomes, and jobs for Americans, as well as fairness and simplicity in the tax code.  If we limit ourselves to static analysis, we take attention away from things that really matter.  What matters to American households and businesses is not simply how much a proposal changes a revenue estimate or budget score; what matters is what tax policy will do to or for them.   Tax reform has been and will continue to be a long and difficult process.  I believe the expanded and sensible use of dynamic analysis can, if done correctly, be an important tool to help us achieve our goals.   I look forward to working with all of you as this effort continues. Thank you, once again, for having me here today.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5c1f98ac-4cc9-41d3-9254-5242bfbed387,Senator Hatch Comments on Passage of CCDBG,2014-11-17,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee released the following statement on the passage of the bipartisan, bicameral reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (CCDBG):  “I was honored to work alongside Senators Burr and Mikulski on this much-needed reform in child care licensing, monitoring, and safety.  Too many young parents, faced with financial hardship, have to choose between providing for their children and caring for them.  I'm thrilled that we’ve been able to work towards a solution to that dilemma.  By empowering states to direct the use of funds to train providers and improve the quality of care, families, not the federal government, get to determine what child care option is best for them.  I look forward to the President signing this bill into law.” Senator Hatch has spent his career seeking ways to protect and help our children.  In 1989 he backed legislation that would provide funds to lower- and middle-income working parents to help them pay for childcare.  In 1997 he created the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), designed to help provide children with health insurance.  Last month the Voices for Utah Children’s First Focus Campaign recognized Senator Hatch as a defender of Children.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c5ca30e2-44a5-42c2-9360-fbd51ff4c986,"ICYMI: Washington Post Names Hatch ""Distinguished Pol of the Week""",2014-11-17,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC – According to the Washington Post, Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was the ""Distinguished Pol of the Week"" last week, and ""perhaps the most productive lawmaker in the Senate.""  The full text of the article appears below:         Kudos to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who were elected by acclamation to lead their respective house’s Republicans. But as we turn from campaigns to governing, I want to single out perhaps the most productive lawmaker in the Senate      Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) for decades has done what the liberal media constantly demand — work across party lines to pass constructive legislation. This year he didn’t wait for the GOP majority to arrive. Back in January, he joined with fellow Republicans Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) to set out a detailed Obamacare alternative. In October he presented an innovation agenda “to foster an environment that encourages research and innovation by addressing abusive patent litigation, protecting trade secrets, modernizing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, strengthening cybersecurity, reforming immigration policy for high-skilled workers, reducing regulatory and tax burdens for innovators, and removing barriers to digital trade.”      In addition, this week he made a constructive suggestion on immigration reform, writing that “effectively fixing this high-skilled piece of the immigration puzzle will require legislative action, and the president’s promise to act unilaterally in other areas will only short-circuit the statutory reforms we desperately need.” He warned, “Obama’s promise to make further unilateral changes to our nation’s immigration policy breeds mistrust and makes meaningful legislative reform even harder to achieve.”  He then suggests, as the GOP House leadership supported, a piecemeal approach starting with a pro-growth, bipartisan H1-B visa plan. (“thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract the highly skilled workers and innovators Obama highlighted in his speech”). Now that the Senate is in GOP hands, it can come up with a series of these. Let the Democrats filibuster border security and H1-B vs. reform or a new e-Verify, thereby showing the public which party favors the component parts of a reasoned immigration approach.       And in a fine speech before the conservative Federalist Society he offered this sage advice: [T]he Constitution teaches the virtue of prudence.  Prudence is a habit of mind that should come naturally to conservatives.  It restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a single, abstract principle.  Rather, it counsels us to work within our existing circumstances to advance the enduring principles upon which liberty depends.  Prudent lawmakers make real-world experience, not abstract theory, their guide, and recognize that success requires harmonizing competing values. The Constitution is an exercise in such prudence.  It contains within its structure a clash of many competing institutions: The democratic, majoritarian House.  The deliberative Senate.  The unified and energetic Executive.  And the independent judiciary.  There is tension between individual rights and majority will, energy and stability, limited powers and flexibility to act.  The Constitution mediates many rival goods.  It is founded on compromise.  And it institutionalizes prudence as a signal virtue of our Republic.  Conservatives have been most successful when we have tempered our ideological zeal with the prudence necessary to produce practical results. Many conservative leaders and thinkers eagerly wrap themselves in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. But as time has passed, President Reagan’s legacy has become increasingly prone to misappropriation and misuse. . . .When I see someone misappropriating President Reagan for their own purposes, I often feel duty-bound to remind my fellow conservatives that President Reagan never prized ideological purity over concrete results. When faced with divided government, he did not choose a my-way-or-the-highway approach.  Instead, he searched for areas of agreement. That meant accepting that some of our noble goals—such as restraining spending and reforming the administrative state—were out of reach at the time. But it enabled President Reagan to make meaningful progress in other, equally critical areas—like pro-growth tax relief and bolstering our national defense—progress that helped produce economic prosperity and won the Cold War. Today, we honor President Reagan’s legacy, not by mischaracterizing his record or engaging in idol-worship, but instead by thoughtfully emulating his leadership, adapted to the challenges of today.       So for all that, and with the promise of a productive 2015 legislative year and prudent governance , we can say, well done, Sen. Hatch.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141114194401/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397666,Bishop Joins in Support of Keystone XL Pipeline,2014-11-14,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) today joined in support of legislation to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline [H.R. 5682]. “As we look to improve upon and grow the way we transport and develop natural resources here at home and with our allies, there is a clear and present need for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Unnecessary delays in this project can be attributed to political gamesmanship on behalf of the President and Democrats in the Senate. It is my hope that Senator Reid and his democrat colleagues will break away from the President’s political playbook by ensuring that Rep. Cassidy’s legislation is passed in the Senate and signed into law by the President,” said Congressman Bishop.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=3f960835-55d6-42e2-8ddc-af35375af314,Senator Hatch Remarks at the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention As Prepared for Delivery,2014-11-14,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"It is truly an honor to be here with you today. The Federalist Society has long been near and dear to my heart. I have been a proud member for decades. And contrary to some of the Left’s more vivid fantasies, our Society isn’t some secret right-wing cabal. It’s a forum for vibrant debate among our diverse membership, made up of conservatives, libertarians, and moderates.  The Federalist Society was borne out of a reaction to the unbridled activism of the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 70s. For decades, our mission has come from a shared antipathy to the policy-driven manipulation of the law in service of political ends.    Today, the Society stands united against the current President’s unprecedented executive overreach. We Federalists care deeply about the separation of powers and the rule of law, and these past six years have seen myriad abuses by this administration. Beyond the legal realm, dissatisfaction with the President has grown as Americans increasingly worry that his policies have left us less prosperous at home and less secure in the world.  The American people went to the polls last week and delivered a decisive blow to President Obama and his progressive agenda. They put conservative majorities in charge of the legislative branch and gave us the opportunity to steer the nation in a better direction. But articulating the case against the Obama administration is the easy part. Advancing our convictions through the constructive task of governing is much harder.  This challenge is only made more difficult by the divisions we face as a conservative movement. Some commentators eagerly highlight divisions on the political Right—between Tea Party and establishment, purists and pragmatists, libertarians and social conservatives, populists and elites, hawks and isolationists.  It is incumbent upon those of us who seek to lead—especially those of us who hold elected office—to develop a positive, constructive agenda that can help unite such factions and present a compelling vision to Americans searching for a way out of our current problems. We must offer solutions, not shutdowns. Developing a shared national vision must involve more than simply identifying a set of policy proposals that satisfy various ideological constituencies. We must root our agenda in timeless principles, and explain to the American people why those principles—and the policies that flow from them—offer the best way forward. Despite what some critics might say, I have been a committed conservative throughout my entire public life. Today, I still cherish the same principles that first brought me to Washington as the vanguard of the Reagan Revolution in the Senate.  As a conservative, I have always been struck by how the fundamental insight of conservatism lies at the root of the word: to conserve. To be a conservative means to be committed to preserving the institutions and traditions that have made our nation so great and so free.    Conservatives recognize that our Constitution gave us a precious gift—a system of government that is both active and restrained. The Constitution endows the federal government with the powers to confront inevitable challenges, but it also checks those powers.  This central thrust of the Constitution—the creation of a limited but capable government—in turn helps to preserve a society where families and communities have space to thrive. We conservatives revere and defend the Constitution not merely because it protects individual liberty and self-government, but also because it helps make real the kind of society in which our civic and social institutions can flourish. I have been greatly encouraged in recent years by the renewed focus among conservatives on the Constitution. As we seek to develop a positive, affirmative agenda, we must always keep the Constitution as our guide. By restoring the Constitution as our foundation, we remain true to the title conservative: we conserve our founding principles, and apply those principles to today’s challenges. This must be an active process, and one that each of us has an independent obligation to undertake.  For too long, most Americans have treated the Constitution as the exclusive province of the judiciary. But legislators like myself cannot simply rely on judges to tell us whether our proposals are constitutional. This tendency to leave things to the courts diminishes the other branches’ role in the constitutional system and misses the many lessons the Constitution has to teach.   And while the courts are charged with the important task of saying what the law is, and not what the law should be, the judiciary’s role in assessing constitutionality is a narrow one.  Judges ask primarily whether a law satisfies some legal rule announced in a previous case.  Is the regulated activity commerce?  Is the punishment for noncompliance a tax or a penalty? But my role as a legislator is not usually about deciding questions of policy based on legalistic reasoning, or seeking to restore the 1789 or 1868 status quo.  For those of us in elected office, fidelity to the Constitution also means looking to the principles that undergird it—values like individual liberty, respect for civil society, and popular accountability—in determining whether a proposed course of action is wise.   Obamacare provides a ready example.  I have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare from its inception.  Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s contortions, the individual mandate undoubtedly exceeds Congress’s powers under the Constitution. But that is not the only reason Obamacare conflicts with the Constitution.  In addition to flunking formal legal tests, it violates many of the enduring principles made manifest in the Constitution.  It invades liberty by compelling individuals to purchase insurance against their will.  It undermines federalism by coercing state governments to expand Medicaid. It dilutes the separation of powers by transferring vast legislative authority to the Executive.  And so on. Whether or not a law meets whatever legal tests the Supreme Court has set forth does not end the inquiry for those of us who seek the Constitution as our guide.  Instead, we must practice what some call political constitutionalism: the notion that it falls mostly to political actors making political decisions to protect and promote constitutional goals. The Constitution has many lessons to teach about good lawmaking—that checks on government power ensure accountability; that most decisions affecting Americans’ lives should be made at the local level, not by some distant, federal bureaucracy; and that, consistent with the Constitution’s many divisions of power, sudden lurches in policymaking should be avoided, while more modest improvements supported by broad coalitions are encouraged. Perhaps most fundamentally, the Constitution teaches the virtue of prudence.  Prudence is a habit of mind that should come naturally to conservatives.  It restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a single, abstract principle.  Rather, it counsels us to work within our existing circumstances to advance the enduring principles upon which liberty depends.  Prudent lawmakers make real-world experience, not abstract theory, their guide, and recognize that success requires harmonizing competing values. The Constitution is an exercise in such prudence.  It contains within its structure a clash of many competing institutions: The democratic, majoritarian House.  The deliberative Senate.  The unified and energetic Executive.  And the independent judiciary.  There is tension between individual rights and majority will, energy and stability, limited powers and flexibility to act.  The Constitution mediates many rival goods.  It is founded on compromise.  And it institutionalizes prudence as a signal virtue of our Republic.  Conservatives have been most successful when we have tempered our ideological zeal with the prudence necessary to produce practical results. Many conservative leaders and thinkers eagerly wrap themselves in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. But as time has passed, President Reagan’s legacy has become increasingly prone to misappropriation and misuse. I recommend a recent essay in Commentary magazine by Henry Olsen and Peter Wehner that dispels some of the myths that have been perpetuated about Reagan, including claims that he was an inflexible ideologue. I was a personal friend of President Reagan—a foot-soldier of the Reagan Revolution in the Senate, and the recipient of what I am told was his only pre-primary endorsement ever. When I see someone misappropriating President Reagan for their own purposes, I often feel duty-bound to remind my fellow conservatives that President Reagan never prized ideological purity over concrete results.  When faced with divided government, he did not choose a my-way-or-the-highway approach.  Instead, he searched for areas of agreement. That meant accepting that some of our noble goals—such as restraining spending and reforming the administrative state—were out of reach at the time. But it enabled President Reagan to make meaningful progress in other, equally critical areas—like pro-growth tax relief and bolstering our national defense—progress that helped produce economic prosperity and won the Cold War.   Today, we honor President Reagan’s legacy, not by mischaracterizing his record or engaging in idol-worship, but instead by thoughtfully emulating his leadership, adapted to the challenges of today.  As in the age of Reagan, our task today as conservatives is to conserve—to retain what works, what is true to our constitutional structure, as we work to correct the excesses of recent years and decades.   For some programs, such as Obamacare, this means seeking to repeal the program root and branch and replace it with one that is both more effective and more in line with limited government and a free society.  For other programs that have become more embedded in the fabric of American society, advancing reforms consistent with the cause of constitutionalism will involve more incremental improvements.   Now that we have a renewed ability to pursue our legislative priorities, laying out a principled, forward-looking, conservative agenda is more important than ever.  In a recent speech at the Reagan Ranch in California, I laid out a number of my own ideas, including patient-centered healthcare reforms to enhance choice and restrain costs, tax reform to spur economic growth and create jobs, an innovation agenda to build the economy of the future, and a social mobility agenda to help all of our fellow citizens live the American Dream.  In my remaining time today, I want to discuss some ideas for regulatory reform—an issue of particular interest to Federalist Society members.  In particular, I wish to suggest how the incoming Senate majority can model our legislative approach on the constitutional conservative vision I have just articulated. A room such as this is full of separation-of-powers enthusiasts. At the mere mention of the monstrosity that is the current administrative state, many of you are ready to launch a crusade in the name of the non-delegation doctrine.  Let me assure you that I share your sentiments. Regulatory reform has been a focus for me since my early days in the Senate. Twice—in 1981 and again in 1995—I led comprehensive regulatory reform efforts that nearly became law. Today, major reform once again seems within reach, and it is more important now than ever. But we must also acknowledge that many do not share our zeal for the finer points of structural constitutional law.  Indeed, in the past, progressives have successfully labeled most regulatory reform efforts as attempts to discard even the most basic regulations, trotting out a parade of horribles like dirty air and polluted water and poisonous children’s toys.  Such rhetoric holds great sway with the general public because most of us want clean air and water, safe children’s toys, and the like.  As a society, we’ve come to expect and rely on a basic level of health and safety regulation.  As much as we may deplore the modern administrative state’s constitutional infirmities, seeking to tear down the entire regualtory state in one fell swoop—or to end the federal government’s power to regulate full stop—does not amount to a serious governing agenda.  By instead crafting our proposals to respond to the most pressing problems presented by an overweening administrative state, I believe we can make serious progress in rolling back the regulatory menace. Perhaps the two most troublesome features of the modern administrative state are, first, the size of our regulatory burden, and second, the lack of accountability in the regulatory process.   The growing federal regulatory burden has been a concern for decades, but the problem is now worse than ever. Both the number of regulations and their combined cost have exploded in recent years.  The American people are now bound by more than one million individual restrictions in the Federal Register, with a total cost of around $1.86 trillion dollars each year. To put that in perspective, that’s about 11 percent of our total GDP; it amounts to around $15,000 per household; and it totals over $300 billion dollars more than combined annual individual and corporate taxes.  In short, our regulatory burden is enormous.  Even as we resist President Obama’s mad dash to add new rules, our nation simply cannot afford to ignore the crushing burden of existing regulations.  They weigh down our efforts to boost economic grown and make it impossible to get the country back on track.  Every President from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama has embraced the notion that outdated, unsuccessful, or otherwise ineffective regulations should be repealed. Nevertheless, the cumulative regulatory burden has continued to expand year after year. To address this growing problem, I plan to introduce the SCRUB Act – Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome.  This legislation creates a bipartisan commission to examine the entire administrative corpus in search of regulations that are obsolete, outdated, ineffective, overlapping, duplicative, or unjustified. Its goal is to achieve a 15 percent cost reduction in our nation’s total regulatory burden. The commission can recommend either immediate repeal, or incremental reform through a flexible, cut-as-you-go procedure that ensures a smooth process for agencies, the regulated community, and the public.  The SCRUB Act turns a longstanding bipartisan commitment to retrospective regulatory review from mere rhetoric into meaningful reality.  It would result in lower prices, higher wages, and more job opportunities for hardworking Americans.  All the while, such commonsense regulatory review poses no risk to our health, our safety, or our environment. It’s the kind of legislation that can earn support from both sides of the aisle—and for which there is a realistic path to having it enacted into law.  It is exactly the sort of reform that constitutional conservatives should champion because it helps restore individual liberty, fuels shared prosperity, and addresses many of our most pressing economic challenges. A second critical flaw in the current administrative state is a fundamental lack of accountability in how the federal government makes and enforces regulations. I hardly need to rehash how broken the regulatory process has become—how agencies and interest groups manipulate the rules and stack the deck against innovators and entrepreneurs and ordinary citizens.  Abuses of the regulatory process have become so commonplace they have almost come to be expected and are often ignored.  Thankfully, there are a number of meaningful avenues for potential reform.  I have been encouraged by the many good ideas for retooling the Administrative Procedure Act, including the latest iteration of the Regulatory Accountability Act introduced by Senator Rob Portman.  This important legislation provides much-needed relief to individuals and businesses by restoring regulatory transparency, requiring evidence-based rulemaking, and ensuring that agencies comply with their basic duty to conduct cost-benefit analysis for the new burdens they seek to impose. But one area that has thus far escaped much legislative attention is the role the federal judiciary plays in the regulatory process.  Given the broad authorities Congress has ceded to the administrative agencies, the courts often stand as the only true independent check on increasingly out-of-control regulators.  But recent abuses by the political branches have created serious challenges for effective and appropriate judicial review of the regulatory process.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=e27c6434-4da8-4fb3-b8ff-317c25f31a62,Hatch Applauds House Passage of Traumatic Brain Injury Program Reauthorization,2014-11-14,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, issued the following statement upon the House of Representatives’s reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) program:  ""I am thrilled that the House of Representatives has voted to reauthorize this crucial program.  Senator Ted Kennedy and I wrote the original Traumatic Brain Injury legislation almost 20 years ago and it is simply amazing to see the tremendous impact it has had on those those dealing with TBI-related disabilities and their families.  These victims are the heroic members of our armed services, young athletes, and others who desperately need our help.  I hope the President will move quickly to sign this important bipartisan bill into law."" The legislation, coauthored by Bob Casey, D-Pa., reauthorizes the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) program for five more years at current funding levels and provides assistance to millions of Americans suffering from brain injuries and their families.  These injuries, which are generally the result of a bump, blow, or jolt to the head, range from mild to severe and can lead to lifelong complications or even death.  Sen. Hatch created the TBI program with late Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in 1996. The Hatch-Casey TBI legislation is supported by American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Physical Therapy Association, American Psychological Association, American Trauma Society, Brain Injury Association of America, Child Injury Prevention Alliance, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, National Association of State Head Injury Administrators, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Association of State EMS Officials, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, National Council on Aging, Prevent Child Abuse America, Safe Kids and the Safe States Alliance.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=f2c32360-f97c-4a08-95cd-081e0d23cc20,Hatch Joins Top Lawmakers in Opposing Controversial Waters of the U.S. Rule,2014-11-14,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC—U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights and Agency Actions, joined several other top Republicans in submitting comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) proposed rule regarding the definition of ""waters of the United States"" (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act.  ""EPA and the Corps must abandon the proposed Waters of the United States rule.  It presents a grave threat to Americans’ property rights, and its finalization will force landowners throughout the country to live with the unending prospect that their homes, farms, or communities could be subject to ruinous Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations and litigation,"" wrote the Members. In the letter, the Members emphasized that the proposed WOTUS rule presents serious federalism concerns since it would call for an extra-constitutional relationship between the federal government and the states in the regulation of local land-use matters.  The proposed WOTUS rule would significantly increase the amount of private property subject to federal control, including timberland, farmland, and innumerable waterbodies and other private lands.  Finalizing the rule would allow the federal government to govern virtually any activity impacting an area where water flows, which means federal government permits would be required for all sorts of routine activities—including installing a playground in a backyard or extending a driveway – and would provide a new litigation tool for far-left environmentalists to attack private citizens and businesses.  The public comment period for WOTUS ends on November 14th. The other Members signing today’s letter include U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; U.S. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment; and U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law; Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., top Republican on the EPW Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife; and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, top Republican on the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141114194447/http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=f8c39a2e-0f9f-4060-ab4c-adf9d4f20264,Lee Responds to Updated Religious Freedom Regulations in the Air Force,2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee released the following statement in response to the recent decision by the Air Force to strengthen its rules protecting religious expression. The updated regulations clarify policy language in the Air Force Instruction 1-1 in order to accommodate for all Airmen the individual expression of religious belief. The revised rules were the result of an internal review of Air Force policy, following revised language on religious freedom in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which Senator Lee had encouraged earlier this year as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee:   “Congress made it clear in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act that the Department of Defense needs to do more to protect the freedom of our service-members to practice and express their religious beliefs while serving our country. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has worked for these protections, I am encouraged to see the Air Force reassessing their own standards to bring them closer to current law. I hope that these new regulations will be implemented with adherence to Congress’s intent of protecting the constitutional rights of Airmen.   Protecting our service-members’ God-given freedom of religion is more than a constitutional requirement – it is critical to maintaining a strong and ready force. I have spoken to many active-duty members and veterans whose strongly held religious beliefs have been essential to dealing with the intense pressures they face in the armed services.  I am afraid that recent trends towards restricting religious freedom in the military will weaken troop morale and impair the efforts of the military to recruit and retain quality service-members. The Department of Defense and Congress have a responsibility to continue engaging on this issue so we can ensure that Americans in uniform are able to enjoy during their time of service the very liberties they are putting their lives at risk to defend for the rest of us.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=678f8c6c-38ee-41d7-a116-5321fc0a1051,All-or-Nothing Is a Bad Approach to Immigration,2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"There is a viable path to meaningful immigration reform, but it does not begin with executive amnesty. During his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama emphasized that “real” immigration reform must involve “fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods and attract the highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.” But effectively fixing this high-skilled piece of the immigration puzzle will require legislative action, and the president’s promise to act unilaterally in other areas will only short-circuit the statutory reforms we desperately need. As someone who has long promoted high-skilled immigration reform, I was hopeful that Obama would support the bipartisan Immigration Innovation (or “I-Squared”) Act that I introduced with Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.). Our bill provides a thoughtful, lasting legislative framework that would increase the number of H-1B visas, based on annual market demand, to attract the highly skilled workers and innovators Obama highlighted in his speech. After all, the president recently argued that a failure to enact immigration reform “has meant lost talents from the best and brightest around the world coming to study here but [who] are forced to leave and then compete against our businesses and workers.” The president recognizes we face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. In April, for the second year in a row, the federal government reached its current H-1B quota just five days after accepting applications. Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas, so American companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad and compete internationally. Despite this crisis, and its immediate damage to our economy, Obama and Senate Democrats have insisted on comprehensive immigration reform or no legislation at all. I am not opposed to a comprehensive approach. In fact, I joined many colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support just such a bill in the Senate last year. But building support for the ultimate immigration reforms our country needs has not been easy. To overcome a challenging political environment, we must first show that legislating in this area is even possible. And it will require trust that the difficult compromises we must make will be honored and enforced when they are enacted into law. Above all else, we need serious presidential leadership to make systemic immigration reform a reality. But the president has thus far been unwilling to provide such leadership. Bowing to pressure from his base, and perhaps because of his own impatience, he has created increasingly broad carve-outs to the enforcement of our current immigration laws. In doing so, he has failed to live up to his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” And this failure has undermined any confidence that Congress might have had in his willingness to enforce the laws we enact. More important, Obama’s promise to make further unilateral changes to our nation’s immigration policy breeds mistrust and makes meaningful legislative reform even harder to achieve. Rebuilding this broken trust won’t be easy. But it is critical to the ultimate success of real immigration reform. The president must abandon his my-way-or-the-highway approach and instead work constructively with Congress. He must reject unilateralism and demonstrate a willingness to enforce the law, even when he may prefer a different policy outcome. And he must drop his insistence on immediate comprehensive reform, especially when individual elements — like our high-skilled bill — can win broad support and help pave the way for additional and more far-reaching reforms in the near future. If the president is serious about enacting meaningful immigration reform, he can choose to take the essential first step. Even in the current partisan climate, there is widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform of our outdated visa system for economically essential high-skilled immigrants. A concrete legislative victory where there is already considerable consensus would help build trust and goodwill among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy. And it would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=e0c64499-199f-4b80-800d-2621a56f828e,Senators Hatch and Lee Comment on Gunnison Sage Grouse Decision,2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee released the following joint statement on the decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service to grant the Gunnison Sage Grouse protected status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA):  ""Once again, the federal government has put forward new regulations that will make life difficult for Utahns and disrupt the Utah economy.  As a result of this decision, even more land on which Utahns have depended for generations to support their families will become subject to onerous restrictions imposed by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.  Worst of all, this listing was simply unnecessary.  As our own Director of Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources has said, federal protections will actually make it more difficult to help the bird, by undermining the voluntary efforts of landowners, local officials, and environmental groups that have successfully maintained the Gunnison Sage Grouse population and conserved their habitat for nearly two decades.  Despite these new regulations, we will continue to fight to protect the rights of states to manage wildlife within their borders.""  Senators Hatch and Lee have been actively involved in the debate over the need for ESA protections of the Gunnison Sage Grouse.  They have co-written a letter alongside five other senators and representatives from Utah and Colorado requesting an extension of the comment period of the proposed rules for the Gunnison Sage Grouse in order to get local communities involved.  The Greater Sage Grouse—a cousin to the Gunnison Sage Grouse—has a larger presence in the West and has been nominated for ESA protections.  A listing of the Greater Sage Grouse would be even more devastating than today’s listing of the Gunnison Sage Grouse.  Both senators cosponsored legislation earlier this year that would require the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to provide assistance to states in developing their own conservation and management plans to protect and recover sage grouse species.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-bishop-oppose-listing-gunnison-sage-grouse,"Chaffetz, Bishop Oppose Listing of Gunnison Sage Grouse",2014-11-12,2014,2014-11,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/20141112202558/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397665,Bishop and Chaffetz Oppose Listing of Gunnison Sage Grouse,2014-11-12,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON— Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01) and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) joined together to announce their opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to list the Gunnison sage grouse as a “Threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The Gunnison sage grouse species is found in Colorado and parts of eastern Utah. In May 2014, the D.C. District Court granted a six-month extension of the deadline for final determination on whether to list the Gunnison sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act.  The Gunnison sage grouse has been the subject of a long-term battle waged by conservation groups wanting to curb use and development of public lands where Gunnison populations can be found. It is widely known that the Gunnison’s ESA listing would heavily restrict oil and gas development as well as ranching and recreation on 1.7 million acres of federal land located in Utah and Colorado. Congressman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz remain concerned that the science used as justification for the listing lacks credibility and that the administration is yet again capitulating to special interest groups. “States, local governments, and public land users are working collaboratively to restore the Gunnison sage grouse populations and progress continues to be made. Restoration of the species is not something that can fully be measured overnight and it’s premature to supersede state and local actions with an ESA listing. Based on the federal government’s track record of ESA recovery, I’d say that listing this bird is not the panacea. This is yet another case of the federal government thinking it is smarter and more capable than the states and communities, a notion I flatly reject,” said Congressman Bishop, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee.   “Wildlife management needs to be handled at the state and local level. That’s where the rubber meets the road. Local land-users are better equipped to develop management plans that both maintain and improve the health of wildlife and local habitat.  It is disappointing that the federal government is undercutting local efforts in San Juan County by imposing this listing that will have a big impact on local communities in southeast Utah,” said Congressman Chaffetz, whose district includes San Juan County, where Gunnison sage grouse habitat has been identified.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=dd7d48a4-8f3f-4ac3-adb7-5a34f7264c64,"Were ready to repeal, replace",2014-11-12,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Voters last week flatly rejected the Obama administration's policies and created a new opportunity to improve American health care by electing a Republican Congress that is firmly committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare. With a flawed website launch, failed state exchanges, burdensome mandates, mass cancellations of coverage and countless other broken promises paid for by Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar tax hike, it's no wonder so few Democratic candidates campaigned on the merits of Obamacare. Instead, they ignored the fact that the president's health law has inflicted new costs on American families, individuals and job creators while doing nothing to lower the cost of health care in the U.S. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, premiums will jump by nearly 7% this year alone. Health care costs will outpace GDP over the next decade and, by 2023, health spending will represent more than 19% of our economy. This is not sustainable. And, while Republicans reaffirmed their opposition to the law on the campaign trail and called for reforms that will help bring costs down, some naysayers continue to claim our party simply wants to return our health care system to the pre-Obamacare status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier this year, Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and I unveiled the Patient CARE Act, a legislative proposal that would reduce costs by harnessing market forces and increase access to affordable, high-quality care. Our plan restores the doctor-patient relationship and protects the vulnerable, the young and those with pre-existing conditions, without crushing mandates from Washington.  Republicans will continue to push for a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare in the next Congress. Conservatives should also take advantage of all opportunities to repeal any part of the law and replace it with better policies that empower Americans, not Washington. To say Obamacare should not be replaced is to say this new reality — with increasing costs and burdens on the American people — is acceptable. Republicans disagree. Note: This op-ed appeared in USA Today on November 11, 2014",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=8a9c5979-7566-48e1-a241-4f88205efaa6,Senator Hatch Remarks as Prepared for Taylorsville Veterans Day Program,2014-11-12,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY, Utah. Senator Hatch delivered the following remarks at the Taylorsville Veterans Day program yesterday: It is a great privilege to be with you today for the Taylorsville City Veterans Day Celebration.  I hope you all enjoyed the great veteran’s parade.  I want to thank the two Grand Marshals of the parade: Jill Atwood, who served seven years in the National Guard, including a tour in Saudi Arabia; and Valentina Paddock who served in the US Marine Corps during the Korean War.  These two women represent the dedication and ideals of the United States Military with dignity and grace.         I also want to thank Mayor Larry Johnson who has organized and conducted such a wonderful Veteran’s Day program.  Thank you for your dedicated service to Taylorsville City and the wonderful state of Utah.            While driving to Taylorsville City Hall today, I was greeted -- like all of you -- by a magnificent sight:  the flags of honor that have been set up and flown to represent Utah’s fallen soldiers from recent conflicts.  What a wonderful memorial to our fallen heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom!             We are here today to pay tribute to our nation’s veterans.  However, I also want to honor the family members who are left at home to keep families and day-to-day life moving forward.  Your sacrifices will never be overlooked or forgotten.  Thank you for the support you give to the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform.           I know that all of you spouses, or significant others of veterans would never treat a veteran as badly as Becky treated Ricky, a Marine stationed in Afghanistan.    She wrote him what some call a “Dear John” letter that stated:        Dear Ricky, I can no longer continue our relationship.  The distance between us is just too great.  I must admit that I have cheated on you twice, since you’ve been gone, and it’s not fair to either of us.  I’m, sorry.  Please return the picture of me that I sent to you. Love,  Becky   With hurt feelings, the Marine asked his fellow soldiers for any snapshots they could spare of their girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, aunts, cousins, etc.  In addition to the picture of Becky, Ricky included all the other pictures of the pretty gals he had collected from his buddies.  There were 57 photos in that envelope. . . .along with this note: Dear Becky,             I’m so sorry, but I can’t quite remember who you are.  Please take your picture from the pile, and send the rest back to me.             Take care,         Ricky             It truly is a great honor for me to join with you in honoring our veterans who have given us so much and paid so dearly to protect our liberties and the American way of life. As demonstrated by the veterans here today -- as well as by the blood and sacrifice of many Americans throughout our nation’s history -- our sacred liberty and way of life are worth defending. And as I stand here before you, my heart is not only with those fallen heroes and veterans who have passed away, but also with our brave service members today who are following in their footsteps in faraway lands.   In President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, he said:  “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” From the earliest days of conflict to the present, more than 1.3 million Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice to, as Lincoln put it, test “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure.” Today, thanks to the sacrifices of our veterans, America not only endures but inspires heads and hearts across the globe with a love of freedom and liberty. That’s why, in my service to our beloved state and nation, I feel it an honor and sacred duty to pay homage to them at every opportunity – on Civil War battlefields such as Antietam and Gettysburg; at the memorials on the National Mall in Washington; and at wonderful monuments like the one erected here.  I regard these places as sacred ground. Of all the solemn memorials in our nation’s capital, perhaps none gives more pause for gratitude and reflection than Arlington Cemetery’s the Tomb of the Unknowns – more commonly referred to as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I’m particularly moved by the inscription on its western panel: “Here rests in glory an American soldier known but to God.” Since the soldiers represented at the memorial are not identified, they have to come to symbolize all our brave service members who have given their lives for our freedom. They signify that America’s fallen heroes may be gone, but they will never be forgotten. Just as God has not forgotten these soldiers, neither should we forget the sacrifices they made to preserve our liberty. In the Hatch household we honor my older brother Jess, a nose gunner in a B-24 Liberator who was killed in action during World War II.  I idolized him as a boy, and I still do. Losing him has made me more fully appreciate the incredible sacrifices made by our veterans and their families, including so many here in Utah. I am profoundly grateful to each and every one of them – for their example, service, and courage. In 1991, while sitting in the Atlanta Airport, I wrote an elegy in honor of my brother Jess, entitled very simply: “Veteran’s Day.”  I would like to share it with you today. Almost 40 years ago My only brother died We know not how, But it must have been badly, For one member of his crew Returned, unspeaking Never to talk again. About the awful end Which laid my brother down, ‘Till brought home again Encased in metal No longer to be seen, Or touched, or loved Except in absentia For future time God provides, To those who hope, Who pray; Who never go away. In spite of death I used to visit his grave, And wait and pray, And wait some more, As though I might hear A voice from the grave, Or at least sounds from there To me, to my soul, Which worries so,  About my brother Jess. It falls on every American -- including all of us here today – to take up Lincoln’s charge and dedicate ourselves to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  We all must continue the fight for freedom. Last Sunday marked the 25th Anniversary of one of the most remarkable days in modern history that so poignantly represents the ultimate gift and desire for freedom – the collapse of the Berlin Wall. As we all observed news footage and old photos from that momentous day, my soul was filled with gratitude and appreciation for America and what it represents to the entire world.      So on this Veteran’s Day, it is important to remember that through the dedicated service of our military, tyranny and threats are diminished, while freedom grows stronger.         And as President Reagan so famously stated, “We will always remember.  We will always be proud.  We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” Thank you again for the honor of joining with you today.  May God continue to bless you, and our beloved state and nation.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a9c775fa-5644-4ce0-907f-4d12c3f712db,Hatch Welcomes U.S. Progress on International Technology Trade Pact,2014-11-11,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY – U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced it reached a deal with China towards expanding the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), an international trade pact that works to eliminate tariffs on information technology products: “After more than a year of stalled negotiations, the Administration’s progress with China to zero-out tariffs on information technology products, like medical devices, is welcome news. Expansion of the Information Technology Agreement would be a big win for American manufacturers, including many in my home state of Utah, who would then be able to increase their global footprint on cutting-edge technologies. Given the recent progress achieved on international trade policy at APEC, it is imperative the President now work with Congress in a bipartisan way to help pass Trade Promotion Authority. Renewal of this job-creating initiative will empower our nation to negotiate a high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will grow the economy, benefit the American people and achieve the goals of Congress.” NOTE: A longtime advocate of breaking down trade barriers, Hatch has repeatedly called on the President to work with Congress to renew TPA, which expired in 2007. This Congress, Hatch introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act with then-Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp. To date, Democrat Leadership in the Senate has blocked movement of the bipartisan, bicameral bill.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141111192322/http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=1d9c383d-ded6-47d1-91cd-4aeab9d9a895,Lee Responds to Presidents Statement on Net Neutrality,2014-11-10,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee released the following statement in response the President’s announcement on net neutrality: “The President’s suggestion that the FCC reclassify the Internet as a public utility, and subject it to the most pervasive and suffocating kind of government regulation, is dangerous. The Internet has flourished precisely because it has been open and free of just this kind of government control. The President’s policy would threaten to break the Internet—and stifle innovation in the most vibrant sector of our economy. “To keep creating jobs and opportunities for the American people, the Internet needs to be free, and protected – by Congress if necessary - from another dysfunctional government takeover."" “Critics of the status quo are right to push for reform and it’s been almost twenty years since Congress updated The Communications Act. But net neutrality is a regulatory framework designed for railroads and telegraphs. We can’t condemn a regulatory framework from the 20th century to replace it with one from the 19th! What we need is to ensure we are protecting consumers and competition across this sector, putting neither producers nor providers, but consumers at the center of the Internet economy."" Senator Lee is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=47d0af72-4917-4daa-85a7-f374cb63e3be,Senator Hatch Responds to President Obamas Net Neutrality Statement,2014-11-10,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City, Utah—Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, current member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, made the following statement on net neutrality: “In a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed about the importance of stopping net neutrality, I wrote that ‘the Internet has grown because of a virtuous and mutually beneficial circle: network operators provide ever-increasing speed and bandwidth; content providers one-up each other with game-changing innovations; and consumers adapt and adopt at lightning speed.’  In the five years since, the Internet has only continued to expand.  Yet the President now seeks to use 80-year-old regulations to control that incredible growth.  It’s not 1934, and we are not dealing with telephones you hold in two parts.  I’m proud of the work Senate Republicans have done to lay out an agenda for encouraging growth and innovation here in America, and we must defend against the use of a decades-old regulatory framework that would hurt that progress."" As Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, Sen. Hatch has been a strong voice against net neutrality. In the next Congress, Sen. Hatch will focus on a pro-tech, pro-innovation agenda that relies heavily on a free and open internet.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=649d9652-0955-464b-bebb-76ca3f4d045d,Lee Responds to Presidents Statement on Net Neutrality,2014-11-10,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senator Mike Lee released the following statement in response the Presidents announcement on net neutrality: The Presidents suggestion that the FCC reclassify the Internet as a public utility, and subject it to the most pervasive and suffocating kind of government regulation, is dangerous. The Internet has flourished precisely because it has been open and free of just this kind of government control. The Presidents policy would threaten to break the Internetand stifle innovation in the most vibrant sector of our economy."" To keep creating jobs and opportunities for the American people, the Internet needs to be free, and protected by Congress if necessary - from another dysfunctional government takeover."" Critics of the status quo are right to push for reform and its been almost twenty years since Congress updated The Communications Act. But net neutrality is a regulatory framework designed for railroads and telegraphs. We cant condemn a regulatory framework from the 20th century to replace it with one from the 19th! What we need is to ensure we are protecting consumers and competition across this sector, putting neither producers nor providers, but consumers at the center of the Internet economy."" Senator Lee is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=89d77556-9f90-456b-bb62-5e841d6b092a,ORRIN G. HATCH: Why the rush to a new attorney general?,2014-11-07,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"President Obama's nomination of Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder Jr. as attorney general is an opportunity to refurbish the tarnished image of both the Senate and the Department of Justice. Seizing that opportunity will require a deliberative confirmation process and the appointment of an attorney general committed to putting the rule of law before partisan politics. Democrats have spent the past two years dismantling the independent role the Senate was designed to play when considering presidential nominations. One year ago, Senate Democrats used a parliamentary maneuver to abolish nearly all nomination filibusters. As a result, for the first time in more than two centuries, the Senate minority today has no real say in the confirmation process. Even so, properly considering a nominee to such a significant position as attorney general requires a full and fair process, something that is particularly hard to do in a post-election ""lame-duck"" session. As a result of the recent election, the Senate in the 114th Congress will be constituted very differently than it is today. Newly elected senators who, beginning in January, will serve with a new attorney general in office should be able to participate in the confirmation process. It has been nearly five years since Ms. Lynch's confirmation as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York and she is not well known in Washington. In recent years, the few nominees confirmed to executive branch positions in a lame-duck session were approved unanimously by voice vote without controversy. They were appointed to help staff lower-profile agencies rather than to lead Cabinet departments. No one has been nominated and confirmed to be attorney general in a lame-duck session since before the Civil War. Since Mr. Holder has committed to serve until a successor is confirmed, there will be no break in Justice Department leadership and, therefore, no need to rush the confirmation of America's top law-enforcement officer. In fact, the need for close scrutiny of the Obama Justice Department counsels in favor of a confirmation process that gets it right rather than does it fast. A new poll finds that two-thirds of Americans are angry with the direction of the country. A further politicized Justice Department will only make that worse. Consequently, consideration of a new attorney general nominee should be guided by one simple imperative; namely, that the rule of law must trump partisan politics. At the time of his appointment, Mr. Holder committed ""to enforce and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States, regardless of [his] personal and philosophical views on a matter."" Actions, however, speak louder than words. It is the attorney general's duty to make any reasonable argument to defend the laws that Congress enacts. Yet the Justice Department refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, notwithstanding reasonable arguments it had made in previous cases that DOMA is constitutional. The attorney general refused to defend the law because he put his personal views above his official duties. The Obama Justice Department has likewise refused to enforce drug laws that carry sentences it thinks should be changed. Rather than work with Congress to change the law as the Constitution requires, the administration put out an offer of clemency to criminals whose sentences it thinks should have been different. The attorney general has also refused to enforce immigration laws and, according to media reports, is helping prepare for unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. President Obama wanted to stack the National Labor Relations Board with union-friendly members without any Senate interference. So, in January 2012, he waited until the Senate adjourned for a few days to make so-called ""recess appointments."" Remarkably, the Justice Department's memo seeking to justify this naked power play was dated after the appointments had already occurred. And the Department's arguments in support of the appointments were so bizarre that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected them earlier this year and found the appointments unconstitutional. These are just a few examples, but the pattern is clear. As I have detailed in speeches on the Senate floor, the Obama administration treats the law, not as a rule to be followed, but as an irritant to be avoided when it conflicts with preferred outcomes. The ends, as the saying goes, justify the means. Yet the attorney general should be the one official in any administration to stand against this temptation. Mr. Holder has failed to do so. That record makes thorough and fair debate about his replacement all the more important. There is no reason to rig the process to minimize Senate scrutiny. We need only follow the example set during the last administration. President George W. Bush nominated a new attorney general days after the November 2004 election. His party controlled the Senate, but the Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing until January 2005, when newly elected senators had taken office, including then-Sen. Barack Obama. Democrats today should follow the same process so that Americans can be confident that the rule of law is once again the Justice Department's top priority. NOTE: This op-ed appeared in the Washington Times on November 7, 2014",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2fde99b2-d5c8-463f-b97c-cd06d00cccb9,Hatch Comments on the Supreme Courts Decision to Rule on Health Care Subsidies under Obamacare,2014-11-07,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City, Utah—Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, former chairman and longest serving Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear King v. Burwell, a case that asks whether the federal government can lawfully provide subsidies to buyers of health insurance under Obamacare. “Obamacare has been a disaster, in no small part because of the divisive process by which it was conceived,” said Hatch. “The Supreme Court must hold the Obama administration accountable to the text of the law as passed by Congress. The clear language of Obamacare authorizes subsidies only through the state exchanges, not the federal exchange.  In this case, the Obama administration simply ignored the law and implemented its own policy instead.  The administration’s decision to issue billions of dollars in subsidies in clear disregard of the statutory text represents a fundamental breach of our constitutional system, in which the rightful authority to make law is vested in Congress."" “President Obama continues to put politics ahead of the rule of law. I applaud the Supreme Court for deciding to hear this vitally important case, and I hope that it will reject the administration’s lawless behavior and instead uphold the lawmaking authority of Congress.”  Senator Hatch has fought tirelessly to repeal Obamacare since it was signed into law in 2010. Earlier this year, along with Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Senator Hatch released what the Washington Post called “the most complete Obamacare replacement plan,” the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=86363b49-5c2c-4816-8c7f-9408c28356c7,Hatch Reacts to Nomination of Loretta Lynch for United States Attorney General,2014-11-07,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City, Utah—Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, former chairman and longest serving Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the nomination of Loretta Lynch, the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to be Attorney General of the United States. ""I congratulate Ms. Lynch on her nomination to serve as the 83rd Attorney General of the United States, and I look forward to reviewing and considering her nomination,” said Hatch. ""When reviewing a candidate to serve as our nation’s chief law enforcement officer, a full and fair confirmation process is always essential, and its importance has only increased in light of the troubling abuses under the current Attorney General. I look forward to hearing Ms. Lynch’s plans for restoring trust in the Department of Justice.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141106194041/http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=7b3079a0-16fe-4cb6-93ba-d87c1ed6befb,"How to Fix Congress: Five Steps To Restore Trust, Transparency, And Empowerment",2014-11-06,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"After years of frustration and months of feverish work, the Republican Party has finally won back the U.S. Senate, and with it, undivided control of Congress. But no sooner had Tuesday night’s balloon drops hit the floor than Republicans around the country – and especially in certain offices in Washington, D.C. – faced that timeless question of election night winners: Now what? This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican Congress, for two additional reasons. First, there is the still-strained relationship between the G.O.P.’s Washington establishment and its grassroots conservative base. And second, the party establishment and consultant class chose to de-emphasize Republican policy alternatives during the campaign. So despite that strategy’s apparent success Tuesday night, our new majority cannot claim a sweeping legislative mandate. But this question needs to be answered, nonetheless. And soon. As a frequent critic of my party’s strategic timidity - and as incoming Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, whose job it is encourage bolder thinking and action - I thought it incumbent on me to offer some concrete, early, and hopefully constructive suggestions about how the new Republican Congress might be steered toward unity and success. As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have my own ideas about what our party’s reform agenda ought to be, and I will spend most of the next two years advocating them.) Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild Congress’s reputation among the American people, and by extension slowly restore the public’s confidence in the Republican Party.   1. Rebuilding Trust The greatest challenge to policymaking today is distrust. The American people distrust their government, and Congress in particular. For their part, Washington policymakers seem to distrust the people. And almost as pressing for the new majority, the distrust that now exists between grassroots conservative activists and elected Republican leaders can be particularly toxic. Leaders can respond to this distrust in one of two ways. One option is the bare-knuckled partisanship that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has exhibited for the last eight years: twisting rules, blocking debate and amendments, and systematically disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans from political representation. But this is no choice at all for the new Republican Majority. First, contempt for the American people and the democratic process is something Republicans should oppose in principle. Second, our new Senate majority will be both ideologically diverse and temperamentally independent – unlikely to be as docile and partisan as Senate Democrats have been. And finally, the 2016 presidential primary campaign may include several Republican Senators, whose incentives for differentiation in a crowded field will make internal politics even harder to predict or control. No, the new Republican majority has neither the institutional credibility nor the cast of characters to expect backbenchers – let alone conservative activists and groups - to unquestioningly follow orders. Rather than resent or deny this fact, Republican leaders should embrace it. We should throw open the doors of Congress, and restore genuine representative democracy to the American republic. No more “cliff” crises. No more secret negotiations. No more take-it-or-leave-it deadline deals. No more passing bills without reading them. No more procedural manipulation to block debate and compromise. These are the abuses that have created today’s status quo – the status quo Republicans have been hired to correct. What too few in Washington appreciate – and what the new Republican Congress must if we hope to succeed – is that the American people’s current distrust of their public institutions is totally justified. There’s no misunderstanding. Americans are fed up with Washington, and they have every right to be. The exploitative status quo in Washington has corrupted Americans’ economy and their government, and made its entrenched defenders rich in the process. This situation was created by both parties, but repairing it is now going to fall to the Republican Party. It’s our job to win back the public’s trust. And that can’t be done simply by passing more bills, or even better bills. The only way to gain trust is to be trustworthy. I think that means we have to invite the people back into the process, to give the bills we do pass the moral legitimacy Congress alone no longer confers. This openness should probably extend beyond the formal legislative process to the strategy­ development process, too. Congressional majorities too often approach their work on an ad hoc basis, bobbing like a cork in a creek between reactive opportunism and institutional inertia. But as we have seen in recent years, the leadership vacuums that kind of passivity creates never stay unfilled. Whatever one might think of their relative merits, recent strategic initiatives led by congressional back-benchers - the “Cut, Cap, Balance” budget plan in 2011, the filibuster letter on gun control in early 2013, the effort to defund Obamacare last fall, and to an extent, even the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill – all represented efforts to fill vacuums created by Republican leaders’ reticence and inaction. Rather than resist this new reality, the new Republican majority can use it to our advantage. Republican leaders should embrace a more open-source strategy development model that includes everyone on the front end to avoid confusion, suspicion, and division on the back end. The last four years have repeatedly shown the folly of excluding anti-establishment conservatives from strategy formation – bills pulled from the floor, intra-Conference chaos, back-biting in the press. Now, with the minority Democrats desperate to highlight such episodes, Republican leaders have every reason to get out in front of every issue, every major bill, every project, and get everyone on board before the train leaves the station. An excellent example of this kind of approach is that of Sen. Lamar Alexander, likely incoming chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Sen. Alexander has made no secret of wanting to do a major reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act. He and his staff have quietly sounded out various higher-ed reform ideas for over a year already. That’s a model all Republican decision-makers should be following, starting immediately. Inclusive legislative and strategy processes will come with tradeoffs, of course. Leaders will have to surrender some of their institutional power. Conservatives will have to be prepared to accept defeat – fair and square - if our ideas cannot carry the day. Members will have to expose themselves to inconvenient amendment votes. The results of some votes and the fates of certain bills may prove unpredictable. But the costs of an open-source, transparent process are worth it for the benefits of greater inclusion of more diverse voices and views, and for the opportunity such a process would offer to rebuild the internal and external trust necessary to govern.   2. Don’t Forget Cronyism We’re going to be hearing that word, “govern,” a lot in coming weeks, as in, “Now Republicans must show they can govern.” What is meant by this is passing bills - quickly and with bipartisan support - and having them signed into law, in order to show the country that Republicans can “get things done.” In this advice, there is much truth, and also a trap. The truth is that, yes, Republicans should take every opportunity to reform federal law wherever common ground with Democrats can be found. And if good policy makes for good politics, as it usually does, so much the better. But the trap is that Republicans in fact can’t “govern” from the House and Senate alone — especially without a Senate supermajority. We can clearly articulate our views and advance our ideas, and then see where we can work with the president and congressional Democrats. But we have to do these things in that order. We should find common ground that advances our agenda, rather than let the idea of common ground substitute for our agenda.    If we fail to grasp that, we will be drawn into advancing legislation that is both substantively and politically counterproductive, and that sends the wrong message to the public about our party. For instance, the easiest bipartisan measures to pass are almost always bills that directly benefit Big Business, and thus appeal to the corporatist establishments of both parties. In 2015, this “low-hanging fruit” we’ll hear about will be items like corporate tax reform, Obamacare’s medical device tax, patent reform, and perhaps the Keystone XL pipeline approval. As it happens, these are all good ideas that I support. But if that’s as far as Republicans go, we will regret it. The GOP’s biggest branding problem is that Americans think we’re the party of Big Business and The Rich. If our “Show-We-Can-Govern” agenda can be fairly attacked as giving Big Business what it wants – while the rest of the country suffers – we will only reinforce that unpopular image. Insofar as the pent-up K Street agenda includes good ideas, then by all means let’s pass those pieces by huge margins and send them to the president. But a new Republican majority must also make clear that our support for free enterprise cuts both ways – we’re pro-market, not simply pro-business. To prove that point, we must target the crony capitalist policies that rig our economy for large corporations and special interests at the expense of everyone else – especially small and new businesses. In other words, Republicans should seek common ground between conservative principles and the interests and needs of the general public, not just between Washington Republicans and Washington Democrats. And the search for that genuinely common ground will point to a lot of low-hanging fruit too, even when it comes to the proper relationship between government and business. We could pass legislation winding down the Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. We could – and really, must - eliminate the taxpayer bailouts for big insurance companies in Obamacare’s “risk corridors” program. Or we could start to break up taxpayer subsidies for the energy industry or large agribusinesses.  Anti-cronyism legislation is win-win for the G.O.P. It is good policy, restoring growth and fairness to an economy that Big Government and Big Business have rigged against the little guy. And it’s even better politics, standing up for the middle class while pinning hypocritical Democrats between their egalitarian talking points and their elitist agenda. Taking on crony capitalism is a test of the political will and wisdom of the G.O.P. To become the party of the middle class and those aspiring to join it – our only hope for success in 2016 and beyond - we have to change more than our rhetoric. The new Republican Congress does have to get things done, but those things have to be for Main Street, too, not just Wall Street and K Street. A big part of our “governing” test is whether we can stand up to special interests. Leaders like Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling in the House, and Marco Rubio and Jeff Sessions in the Senate have made the fight against cronyism a point of emphasis – and it’s sure to be a theme in the 2016 presidential primaries, too This issue is reaching critical mass on the Right. And as I see it, it’s now a political necessity, another one that we should embrace rather than resist. In passing anti-cronyism bills, we can either achieve policy wins for economic growth and opportunity. Or we can let the president explain in his veto messages why taxpayers, whose take-home pay is stagnant, should be subsidizing corporations, whose profits have never been higher. That’s a brand-changing debate Republicans can win.   3. Keep it Simple on the Budget The biggest strategic and legislative question the new Republican Congress will face in 2015 is what we should do on the Budget. The procedural and political realities of the Budget process demand that, in an era of divided government, it highlight the contrasts between the two parties. (Unless, like the Democrats, you ignore federal law and just don’t do a Budget at all, the better to conceal your true beliefs from the public.) Come the spring, House and Senate Republicans have to pass a common Budget Resolution for the fiscal year starting next fall. The Budget’s privileged process allows for its passage in the Senate with only 51 votes – which in all likelihood will mean 51 (hopefully 54!) Republicans and no Democrats. This step must be fulfilled to begin the so-called reconciliation process, under which Congress can fast-track a single fiscal reform bill later on – again with only 51 Senate votes. It’s such a complicated process, and such a delicate political balancing act that to succeed, the Republican establishment and conservative grassroots should come to an agreement very early on the broad parameters of what the Budget must entail. Arguing over specific spending levels, cuts, programs, and reforms at this point is probably unwise. Rather, we should try to agree on a handful of principles that all Republicans can agree on and not try to have the budget alone substitute for everything Congress needs to do. The three most obvious Republican consensus principles – to me, anyway - are that our budget should: 1. Balance within ten years (without accounting gimmicks), 2. Not raise taxes, and 3. Repeal Obamacare. These goals comprise the closest thing our party has to a mandate in the wake of this election, and my guess is that every House and Senate Republican is already on record supporting them. If we want to avoid an ugly establishment-grassroots battle next spring, Republican leaders and Budget Committee leaders would do well to reach out to all wings of the party to get buy-in on a framework like this, and only then begin the sausage-making.   There are rumors around Capitol Hill that some Republicans don’t want to repeal Obamacare in the budget process. They would prefer to pursue something else – corporate tax reform, for instance – where bipartisan cooperation may be more attainable. They want to use budget reconciliation to “get a win.” But this has things backwards, it seems to me. President Obama and many Democrats have already voiced some support for corporate tax reform. Any plan that could get the president’s signature wouldn’t need to be done via reconciliation, because such a bipartisan compromise could easily get 60 votes in the Senate. The whole point of reconciliation is that it allows the majority one chance to pass something with only simple majorities. For Republicans in 2015 – not as a matter of ideological purity but of practical coalitional unity - that one thing has to include repealing Obamacare. Corporate tax reform – and much else – can be pursued in other ways.   4. Fund It? Fix it.     One of the biggest traps Republicans and conservatives fall into is any debate about budget “cuts.” When you stop for a moment and think, blindly “cutting” the federal government’s budget is not a very conservative approach to governing. After all, the conservative critique of Washington is not that the federal government is a bit profligate, but otherwise efficient and effective with our money. No, the problem with Washington is that it’s comprehensively wasteful, unfair, and dysfunctional. It is, in a great many areas of policy, trying to do the wrong things and doing them in the wrong ways. Just spending less on a misguided program doesn’t get you any closer to a real solution than just spending more on it. If the program is dysfunctional – if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, and what it’s supposed to do is worth doing – fix it. Fixing a leaky faucet is not an arbitrary “cut” in one’s water bill – it’s repairing a broken system so that it only costs what it must. Republicans can approach federal reform the same way. We can make a commitment in coming years not merely to cut big government, but to fix broken government, which is the more difficult but far more important work. For instance, we know for a fact that the federal highway trust fund wastes money: on bureaucracy, on special interest giveaways, on projects that are purely local and can be managed by state and municipal governments. Therefore, when the time comes next spring to reauthorize the federal highway program, the Republican Congress should insist on making the system at least a little bit better – rather than just “finding the money” to fully fund a legacy system we already know doesn’t work. I along with several other conservatives have proposed a plan to permanently reform the highway program; I also know that President Obama is unlikely to sign it. Republicans shouldn’t accept the president’s veto threat as the end of the negotiation, however, but the beginning. If he wants infrastructure money, he should accept some structural reforms to give states more flexibility and let gas tax revenue go further. Similarly, Head Start is a program that the Obama Administration itself has found does not work. Decades of rigorous analysis have shown that it does not yield lasting benefits for children in need. So, rather than spend less money on exactly the same broken system – and merely disserve fewer poor children - Republicans should start to fix it – to better serve more children, at lower cost to the taxpayers. Sen. Tom Coburn has fought for years to clean up wasteful aspects of the Defense Department budget that have no bearing on national security. Sen. Dick Durbin and I have introduced a bill to reform federal criminal sentencing guidelines, which would save taxpayers $2.5 billion over ten years. Crumbling public support of Common Core should force action on federal K-12 grants. The Ebola outbreak demands serious reprioritization at the Centers for Disease Control. The annual appropriations process should take up this approach, too. We should put an end to “omnibus,” all-or-nothing spending packages, and instead insist on consideration of each appropriations bill in regular order – with hearings, amendments, and specific votes. This is how the Constitution protects Americans from waste and exploitation, after all. It’s also the only way Congress can hope to rein in the Obama Administration’s unprecedented abuses of power – by withholding funding from corrupt bureaucracies.  Indeed, the entire congressional budget-and-spending process is due for a comprehensive overhaul. But at a minimum, Congress should only fund reformed programs. (Only in D.C. would this suggestion be even remotely controversial.) If the president rigidly resists intelligent, surgical reform based on thorough oversight, then we could turn to across-the-board cuts, as we did in 2011. These are not heavy lifts or ideological crusades I’m describing. They only seem novel because it’s been so long since we’ve had a functioning legislature. My modest proposal is that if there is a good reason for Congress to fund a program, that in and of itself is a good reason to continually improve it.   5. Ryan-ize the Committees Ironically (or not, if you know how Congress works), the most important policy development in the Republican Party in the last decade was not undertaken by party leaders in the House, Senate, or the White House. In fact, formal party leaders largely discouraged it. Instead, that work was conducted by Congressman Paul Ryan when he became the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee in 2007. Ryan instructed his new committee staff to think big, to transcend the short-termism that plagues Congress and develop solutions to long-term problems. Ryan and his staff dove deep into America’s structural budget shortfalls and the long-term challenges to our entitlement programs and economy. The end result was what Ryan called his “Roadmap for America’s Future.” It called for major reforms to our tax system, our entitlement programs, our health care system, and across the federal government. It was controversial, of course. The immediate reception was predictable: Democrats trashed it and most Republicans ran for cover. But in time, people on both sides of the aisle were forced to admit that the Roadmap was a serious document. It warranted a serious debate, and it has gotten one ever since. When Republicans took back the House of Representatives in 2011, some of the broad outlines of the Ryan Roadmap became de facto positions of the Republican party – positions on issues Democrats still try to pretend don’t exist. For all the well-deserved plaudits Ryan gets for his brains, the Roadmap – whatever one thinks of it - was really an achievement of his guts. He had the courage to take his plan into the arena, and withstand criticism, even from his allies. That is, he did what all politicians say we want to do – and succeeded. So the fifth step to a healthy Republican majority in the 114th Congress is to use congressional committees to begin developing the agenda for the 115th and 116th and 117th Congresses, too. We should “Ryan-ize” the committees, for lack of a better word, encouraging our chairmen to think big.  House and Senate Republicans should make it part of the job description of “Chairman” that each committee – and ideally, each subcommittee – propose at least one major, fundamental, long-term policy overhaul each year. These reforms could not be passed in this Congress, of course. And conservatives are rightly suspicious of “big bill” legislating at all anymore. But such proposals would serve the valuable purpose of identifying long-term goals that nearer-term, incremental proposals can move policy toward. They would be outlines, not thousand-page bills, and they would help shape the small bills and gradual steps necessary to advance a conservative vision of government. America’s health care, energy, higher education, telecommunications, security, and criminal justice needs (to name just a few) appear to be in the midst of transitions, nearing tipping points that will help define our nation in decades to come. In such a moment, it’s not enough to ask ourselves, “What can we pass this year?” without first asking – and investing every possible resource into answering – “How can our needs be met in the 21st century?” Government itself is one of the prime candidates for this kind of thinking. Most systems we use to provide government services were designed decades ago, before the tech and telecom revolutions that have changed the way Americans do almost everything else. In twenty years, will we need, say, a Government Printing Office or Internal Revenue Service in anything like their current forms? If disruptive innovations continue to personalize and localize the economy, will centralized, monolithic bureaucracies be the right instruments to regulate it? Or is government just as badly in need of some disruptive innovations that would enable market forces, public desires, and longstanding constitutional principles to once again show us the way and make our institutions more accountable? Of course politicians cannot predict the future, nor can government direct future industries any better than it directs current ones. But we know that our society and our economy have rocketed out in front of our government, and that the bureaucracy in its current form is unlikely ever to catch up. Insisting that today’s leaders look beyond the next news cycle and the next election cycle will benefit the country and the Republican Party in the long run. The only way to move incrementally in the right direction is to know which way the right direction is. Long-term reform projects will lay down markers for the Party while identifying opportunities for innovation in the nearer term. The above suggestions represent dramatic departures from Congress’s status quo, but that’s the point. The new Republican majority cannot indulge in fantasies of a mandate or public contentment with its political institution. Everything about American life today is becoming more decentralized, open-source, localized and personalized. Everything, that is, except government. An increasingly customizable economy and diverse social networks of mini-communities will not long tolerate the innate incompetence of clumsy, self-serving, Big Government. Since the end of the Cold War, the American people have experimented with every conceivable combination of partisan control in Washington – presidents, Houses, and Senates of both parties. In that time, the costs of the staples of middle-class life – housing, health care, education, child-rearing, and retirement security – have risen, unabated. Yet take-home pay is stagnant and jobs are increasingly insecure. We are not getting this right. But the cliché that Washington doesn’t work is not right, either. Washington does work, for Washington. For many years, Congress has worked perfectly well for so-called “stakeholders” on Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. The challenge for the new Republican majority is to put Congress back to work for Main Street — to make Washington work for America. The status quo is failing. So leaders need to seek for strategies and tactics outside the status quo. The new Republican Congress cannot be led according to the old ways of hierarchical deference, or appeals to institutional trust. But just because Republican unity cannot be imposed doesn’t mean it cannot be achieved. There are other paths to unity and cooperation and shared success, including the path that the Republican Party already embraces in America’s free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society. What I propose, then, is an agenda of empowerment – an  internal Republican agenda of empowerment to complement our external one. Let Congress operate less like a 19th-century industrial mill, and more like a 21st-century open-source network. The media wants to criticize the G.O.P.’s diversity and independence as disunity and weakness. But this criticism says much more about the critics than about us. It’s like saying in 1999 that Borders Books would rout Amazon, or saying today that taxi cartels are “stronger” than Uber. In today’s world, individual and community empowerment are strengths for organizations who know how to use them. Transparency, equality, diversity, and innovation – these are not abstract values, but practical strategies that our new majority can use to unite the Republican coalition, revive public trust in Congress, and put the federal government back on the side of the working families and communities our broken status quo is leaving behind. Tuesday, Republicans won a great victory. Now what? Deserve it. Op-ed originally published by The Federalist: Mike Lee's Plan to Fix Congress",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141107191648/http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=723c1925-9152-4c42-bb89-d8d51b03a0bd,"How to Fix Congress: Five Steps To Restore Trust, Transparency, And Empowerment",2014-11-06,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Read the full article   After years of frustration and months of feverish work, the Republican Party has finally won back the U.S. Senate, and with it, undivided control of Congress. But no sooner had Tuesday night’s balloon drops hit the floor than Republicans around the country—and especially in certain offices in Washington, DC—faced that timeless question of election-night winners: Now what?   This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican Congress, for two additional reasons.   First, there is the still-strained relationship between the GOP’s Washington establishment and its grassroots conservative base. And second, the party establishment and consultant class chose to de-emphasize Republican policy alternatives during the campaign. So despite that strategy’s apparent success Tuesday night, our new majority cannot claim a sweeping legislative mandate.   But this question needs to be answered, nonetheless. And soon.   As a frequent critic of my party’s strategic timidity—and as incoming chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, whose job it is encourage bolder thinking and action—I thought it incumbent on me to offer some concrete, early, and hopefully constructive suggestions about how the new Republican Congress might be steered toward unity and success.   As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have my own ideas about what our party’s reform agenda ought to be, and I will spend most of the next two years advocating them.)   Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild Congress’s reputation among the American people, and by extension slowly restore the public’s confidence in the Republican Party…   Read the full article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=2fcfe3d1-d974-4859-87c7-53282520b138,"After Harry Reid, the GOP Shouldnt Unilaterally Disarm",2014-11-06,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By ORRIN G. HATCH And C. BOYDEN GRAY After the 2006 midterm elections delivered control of the Senate to the Democratic Party, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that it was “time for bipartisanship, it’s time for open government, transparency, and it’s a time for results.” Eight years later, we know all too well what those “results” turned out to be—and they did not include bipartisanship, openness or transparency. The Democratic Party’s opaque, aggressively unilateral approach to government spurred voters to return the Senate to Republican control this week. In preparing to lead, Senate Republicans must not repeat the Democratic majority’s excesses. Instead, our party must now begin the hard work of repairing much institutional damage. After six years of disregarding its constitutional responsibilities, the Senate must once again become a forum for meaningful deliberation and must stand as a true check and balance against executive-branch overreach. Specifically, the new Senate must begin by restoring the twin pillars of the institution’s deliberative character: full debate and an open amendment process. Sen. Robert C. Byrd described those two institutional safeguards—open debate and amendment—as bulwarks that ensure “the liberties of the people will remain secure.” In the end, the Senate’s procedural safeguards exist not to protect individual senators, but to preserve Americans’ liberty. But that fundamental goal—protecting liberty—counsels against blindly returning to the prior status quo. Some bells cannot be unrung. Chief among these is Sen. Reid’s decision to invoke the “nuclear option” to strip minority senators of their ability to filibuster judicial nominees. The nuclear option allowed President Obama and his allies to reshape the judicial branch dramatically to suit their far-left agenda. And the Democrats were not shy in boasting of their achievement. This summer, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the administration’s efforts to extend subsidies to the federal ObamaCare exchange—in clear violation of the plain words of the Affordable Care Act and the stated intent of its architects—the newly minted majority of Democratic appointees on that court voted to rehear the case “en banc.” Sen. Reid announced that the “simple math” of the D.C. Circuit’s new majority of Democratic-appointed judges would serve to “vindicate” Democrats’ use of the nuclear option, presumably by preserving the administration’s signature legislative achievement. Similar effects are seen throughout the federal courts. As the New York Times reported on Sept. 13, “judges appointed by Democratic presidents” now “considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents,” and that “advantage has only grown since late last year when [Democrats] stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.” Liberal legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin declared in the Oct. 27 New Yorker magazine that the nuclear option’s sudden transformation of the federal judiciary has “cemented Obama’s judicial legacy.” It will fall to the next Republican president to counteract President Obama’s aggressive efforts to stack the federal courts in favor of his party’s ideological agenda. But achieving such balance would be made all the more difficult—if not impossible—if Republicans choose to reinstate the previous filibuster rule now that the damage to the nation’s judiciary has already been done. To restore the rule now, after Mr. Obama has installed his controversial judges, would cement a partisan double standard: When Democrats control the White House and Senate, judicial nominations need only 50 votes; but when Republicans control both, judicial nominations require 60 votes, allowing Democratic minorities to block Republican nominations. This would be only the latest example of a destructive pattern of double standards. Under President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, Senate Democrats savaged the Robert Bork, David Souter and Clarence Thomas nominations. During the Clinton administration, Republicans were largely deferential to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer nominations, an olive branch that Democrats ignored as they attacked the John Roberts and Samuel Alito nominations and launched unprecedented filibusters of lower-court nominations under President George W. Bush . (For all of its harm, at least the nuclear option restored the pre-2003 tradition against filibustering judicial nominations, which Democrats violated in order to block the George W. Bush nominees.) Simply put, if Republicans re-establish the judicial-nomination filibuster, it would remain in place only until the moment that a new Democratic majority decided that discarding the rule again would be useful. Indeed, Republican willingness to restore the old filibuster rule would only increase Democrats’ incentives to engage in further rule changes in the future. If Republicans refuse to hold Democrats to the new nominations rules they set for the Senate, Democrats will have no reason to fear that they may someday bear the costs of their own tactics. The Senate can and must be restored as a check on executive-branch overreach, a forum for true legislative debate and a bulwark for liberty. But unilateral disarmament on nominations would only invite further damage to the institution. NOTE: This op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 6, 2014.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=b27b06af-f64f-4af9-a39a-8e0d5a677c1f,Sen. Orrin Hatch Statement on District Court Decision on Prairie Dogs,2014-11-06,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City, Utah—Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the most senior Republican in the Senate, released the following statement on the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Utah striking down as unconstitutional Endangered Species Act regulations that limit the rights of Utah property owners:  “I’m glad the court has stepped in to protect the property rights of Utahns,” Hatch said. “I’ve worked on this issue for a long time, and this decision is a direct result of the tremendous efforts of the members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Iron County Commission, and the people of Iron County. This is the first time a federal court has found that Endangered Species Act regulations limiting the taking of a listed species exceed the scope of Congress’s enumerated powers. The court’s decision confirms what we have said all along: the federal government has no business interfering with property rights where the allegedly endangered species has no connection to, or effect on, interstate commerce. I will continue to fight the federal government’s unnecessary intrusions in the state of Utah.”  Sen. Hatch visited affected sites in Iron County to see the issue firsthand in the summer of 2012. As Chairman of the Senate Western Caucus’s Public Lands Subcommittee, he also coordinated visits for officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which led to an official proposal that would allow for a more serious solution.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b268b23b-6245-4c43-bbf3-add5b3b8d4a6,"How to Fix Congress: Five Steps To Restore Trust, Transparency, And Empowerment",2014-11-06,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Read the full article After years of frustration and months of feverish work, the Republican Party has finally won back the U.S. Senate, and with it, undivided control of Congress. But no sooner had Tuesday nights balloon drops hit the floor than Republicans around the countryand especially in certain offices in Washington, DCfaced that timeless question of election-night winners: Now what? This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican Congress, for two additional reasons. First, there is the still-strained relationship between the GOPs Washington establishment and its grassroots conservative base. And second, the party establishment and consultant class chose to de-emphasize Republican policy alternatives during the campaign. So despite that strategys apparent success Tuesday night, our new majority cannot claim a sweeping legislative mandate. But this question needs to be answered, nonetheless. And soon. As a frequent critic of my partys strategic timidityand as incoming chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, whose job it is encourage bolder thinking and actionI thought it incumbent on me to offer some concrete, early, and hopefully constructive suggestions about how the new Republican Congress might be steered toward unity and success. As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have my own ideas about what our partys reform agenda ought to be, and I will spend most of the next two years advocating them.) Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild Congresss reputation among the American people, and by extension slowly restore the publics confidence in the Republican Party Read the full article",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=a42a0ad2-5dfd-4cbc-8374-07882d369b1d,HATCH CONDEMNS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS ON ISRAEL,2014-10-31,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Sen. Orrin Hatch sent a letter to President Obama today condemning the comments made by senior administration officials regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for the dismissal of those responsible. According to an article in The Atlantic titled “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here,” Obama administration officials described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “recalcitrant,” “myopic,” “reactionary,” “obtuse,” “blustering,” “pompous,” and “Aspergery.” The article also recounts a senior official referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a “chickens***” and a “coward.”             “These comments are flagrantly offensive and wholly inaccurate,” writes Sen. Hatch. “Throughout his life and tenure in office, Prime Minister Netanyahu has conducted himself with honor, dignity, and the highest distinction. He has proven himself both a capable defender of the State of Israel and a willing partner for peace, as well as a true and loyal friend of the United States.  “[T]hese comments are deeply harmful to our vitally important relationship with Israel and its duly elected leader,” Hatch wrote. “No less than immediate dismissal can demonstrate that such remarks do not in any way represent the policy or attitude of your administration or of the United States government.”   The full text of Sen. Hatch’s letter is below: October 31, 2014 The Honorable Barack H. Obama President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President,             I write to you today out of concern arising from comments made by members of your Administration that appeared in Jeffrey Goldberg’s October 28, 2014 article in The Atlantic entitled, “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here.” The article quotes “Obama administration officials” describing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “recalcitrant,” “myopic,” “reactionary,” “obtuse,” “blustering,” “pompous,” and “Aspergery.” The last term, employed as a pejorative, presumably refers to Asperger Syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder affecting an estimated 600,000 Americans. The article also recounts a senior official referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu as a “chickenshit” and a “coward.”             These comments are flagrantly offensive and wholly inaccurate. Throughout his life and tenure in office, Prime Minister Netanyahu has conducted himself with honor, dignity, and the highest distinction. He has proven himself both a capable defender of the State of Israel and a willing partner for peace, as well as a true and loyal friend of the United States. Beyond their offensiveness and inaccuracy, these comments are deeply harmful to our vitally important relationship with Israel and its duly elected leader. As a nation, the United States has long shared a unique bond with Israel that each of your predecessors since President Truman has sought to preserve and strengthen. The American people expect you to follow in this important tradition of friendship with Israel—a critical legacy that has been endangered by these despicable remarks. I applaud Secretary of State Kerry for condemning these remarks for what they are: unacceptable. On behalf of my fellow Americans, I ask that you order a complete and thorough investigation to determine the identity of these senior members of your administration and, once identified, terminate these officials’ service. No less than immediate dismissal can demonstrate that such remarks do not in any way represent the policy or attitude of your administration or of the United States government. At this time of enormous challenges in the Middle East, we cannot afford any attenuation in America’s relationship with our most reliable partner and friend in the region. Thank you for your prompt consideration. I look forward to the speedy resolution of this matter. Sincerely, Orrin G. Hatch United States Senator",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141030185735/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397664,IN THE NEWS: In our opinion: Daggett County shines with public-lands compromises,2014-10-30,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Deseret News editorial Considering all the “players” involved and “fields” in play, one needs a scorecard to track progress with ongoing public lands efforts in eastern and southeastern Utah. And the latest addition to that scorecard? A home run coming out of Daggett County. First, a quick in-game update on the Bishop public lands initiative, bearing the name of Rep. Rob Bishop, the Utah congressman who has spent the last nearly two years trying to broker local land-use agreements. It’s a search for public lands resolutions that the Deseret News dubbed “The Grand Compromise.” The initiative — a work-in-progress with county-by-county discussions and cooperations — is expected to be unveiled in final-draft form in early 2015. The initiative proposes solutions for some 18 million acres in the extreme eastern past of Utah, with possible wilderness designations reaching 2 million acres and creating well-defined areas for recreation, ranching, oil and gas development, mining interests, potash extraction and more. The “players” represent dozens of local government entities, special-interest groups, businesses, corporations and the like — all with a vested interest in the public lands and their uses. It’s something Utahns want to see successfully resolved. Bishop’s initiative allows compromise at the local level — the county-by-county compromises allowing for closest-level discussions unique to that area. In other words, what’s good for Uintah County may be different than what works in Wayne County, rather than painting the entire region with one broad brushstroke. Emery County, for example, lined up its public lands compromises more than a year ago, a model of prompt effort and cooperation. Other counties, such as San Juan, are on the other end, with invested participants unable so far to find much of a common middle ground. And still others, like Grand, are somewhere in the middle — seemingly reaching a cooperative summit one day only to struggle with a speed bump the next. Meanwhile, Bishop says Obama administration officials are letting the processes continue while progress is being made, rather than have the federal government come in and with one fell swoop — a national monument designation for a big chunk of the lands — make a game-eliminating play resulting in definite and restrictive land uses. Which brings us back to Daggett County, the state’s least-populated county (meaning there’s plenty of public lands to work with). Last week, the Daggett participants compromised in give-and-take fashion, including identifying some 100,000 acres (a fifth of Daggett’s land mass) for wilderness and conservation designations, and another 7,000 acres for much-needed resort development. Officials for the different entities and groups saluted the end result, as did Bishop, who said, “This is almost like a microcosm or template for what we can do in the rest of Utah.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141027224333/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397663,IN THE NEWS: ABC News CH4-Lawmakers and environmentalists find common ground in Daggett County land agreement,2014-10-27,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 Utah) – It's being called an historic agreement that can serve as a model to resolve the dispute over public lands in Utah once and for all. Thousands of acres in Daggett County will be preserved as conservation, forest and wilderness areas. In return, the county and state will receive lands for economic development. It's not a scene you see every day in Utah politics, conservative law makers at the table with environmentalist groups to announce a proposed compromise. ""We're honored to have you here on what I think is an historical occasion,"" said Governor Gary Herbert, (R) Ut. A public lands management agreement on thousands of acres in Daggett County. It's all part of Representative Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative, bringing all parties together to find the balance between conservation and economic development. ""Utah is a public lands state, it's always going to be a public lands state. The real issue is trying to get more decisions on that land being done by Utahns,"" said Bishop, (R) Ut. In the Daggett County Compromise more than 100,000 acres will be designated for conservation. ""We'll see things protected along the Green River in Daggett County, portions of the High Uintas were protected, Diamond Mountain was protected,"" said Scott Groene, with Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Other parts will be developed to contribute to the state school trust fund and boost the local economy dependent on tourism. ""We need to diversify our recreational opportunities other than fishing in the Flaming Gorge and the Green River,"" said Daggett County Commissioner, Jerry Steglich. This will allow the county to do that by developing a ski resort, shooting range, power substation and more. What at times seemed like a stalemate. ""I did want to walk away, several times,"" said Steglich. Is now being praised as the negotiations move from county to county. ""We've been able to bring people together here in agreement, which i think is going to be a model for us for the rest of the state,"" said Herbert. Representative Bishop plans to introduce his Public Lands Initiative bill this January. He believes it could take a good year to get it through congress.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=0c6017b8-8fed-4a69-8630-60ee121dc7cf,Senator Hatch Announces J.P. Freire as New Communications Director And Mathew Jensen as Legislative Assistant,2014-10-27,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch announced Friday that J.P. Freire will be joining his staff as Communications Director overseeing communications for the state of Utah and the personal office.  Freire joins Hatch’s staff after two years of serving as Communications Director and Speechwriter for U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo of the 4th District of Kansas.  He previously worked as a Senior Communications Strategist in crisis communications, campaigns, and corporate defense for New Media Strategies following nearly eight years as an award-winning conservative journalist, including turns as Associate Editorial Page Editor at the Washington Examiner, Managing Editor at the American Spectator, and Researcher/Writer at the New York Times.  In 2009 he was honored as CPAC’s Journalist of the Year.  Freire holds a B.A. in English from Cornell University, where he also served as senior editor of the Cornell Review. “J.P.’s experience as a policy-focused journalist, strategic communicator, and effective manager will be a major asset to our team as we coordinate our agenda for the Senate,” Hatch said.  “J.P. is an honest broker who knows how to discuss complicated issues with reporters, and I’m thrilled to have him as part of my team.”   Matthew Jensen was also promoted from Military Legislative Research Assistant to Legislative Assistant where he will be handling Transportation, Space, and Veterans Affairs.  He will continue to play a supportive role in Defense-related issues.  Jensen has been with Senator Hatch’s office since 2011 and has worked on a broad range of policy areas.  Jensen is a graduate of Utah State University.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2f70eb3b-2175-4306-b78c-cc4d2e9961c5,Hatch Marks 20th Anniversary of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA),2014-10-27,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Orrin Hatch, former Chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and current member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee delivered a speech marking the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) into law this weekend.  According to the United Natural Products Alliance, the industry has grown from a $9 billion industry in 1994 when the bill passed to $35 billion in 2013 with a 7.5% annual compound growth.  By 2017, national sales are expected to reach just under $50 billion.  In Utah, it is an almost $7 billion industry annually. In his speech to leaders of the dietary supplement industry Hatch stated: “DSHEA was a remarkable achievement.  The solid compromise has had relatively few problems in two decades, and there has not been a major amendment to its structure in the last 20 years.  “The law created a crystal clear definition for dietary supplements and made clear they would be regulated as foods. DSHEA provided the FDA with abundant authority to protect public health through a defined safety standard and new safety authorities.” The Senator’s full remarks are below: Thank you for that kind introduction and for having me here today.  I am so honored to be speaking here today in front of a crowd of longtime friends and supporters.  You all know that I am very fond of the dietary supplement industry, and I am so proud to have watched this industry continue to grow and flourish in the state of Utah. I am personally invested in ensuring that the companies represented here today are able to reach consumers, grow their business, and improve the health of millions of Americans by developing their products and expanding their capacity to fill the demand for dietary supplements.               That’s why I’m so proud that this week we celebrate the twentieth anniversary of DSHEA - the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Why DSHEA? As you all know, DSHEA established a rational framework for the regulation of dietary supplements.  In the early nineties, a national dialogue on improving health care was underway.  Numerous studies indicated at least 100 million Americans regularly used vitamins and minerals to improve diet and health. Utah was a key part of this dialogue, in part because of the concentration of supplement companies located here, but also because of our state’s affinity for freedom and resentment of unnecessary federal intrusion. Over the previous several decades, the FDA had been rather heavy-handed with this industry, trying repeatedly to create new restrictions on both the labeling and content of dietary supplements.  One of the most notable examples was FDA’s opposition to folic acid as a dietary supplement. The CDC recommended pregnant women take folic acid to prevent birth defects, but the FDA refused to allow supplement manufacturers to use this information. Forging a Compromise That’s why I came together with my colleagues in the Senate to change the law.  And, in fact, this was not a partisan issue.  It was about fairness and about allowing the American public access to these products and information about their benefits. I worked very hard and methodically to build support.  Senator Harkin and Congressman Richardson worked with me to make the case to our colleagues.  In the end, two-thirds of the Senate and over half the Labor and Human Resources Committee were cosponsors.  I’ll never forget when we crossed the halfway mark in committee. Senator Jeff Bingaman was crucial to the effort.  He was from New Mexico, the same state as Congressman Richardson and was considered to be a rational and thoughtful Senator on the Committee.  He said he had talked to the FDA and was convinced they weren’t being fair on this issue.  So, he came on board with DSHEA and put us over the halfway mark in the Labor and Human Resources Committee – what’s now called the HELP Committee. I hounded Senator Kennedy – who chaired the committee – to move the bill forward.  Ted, I need a hearing, I said.  And to his credit, he gave me one and allowed me all the time I needed to question the witnesses.  Ted, I need a markup, I said. He put the bill on the agenda – even though his own compromise legislation only got five votes.  Ted, I need the bill brought up in the Senate, I said. And he allowed it to go forward. Perhaps most importantly, there was unprecedented grassroots support.  I have many of you here today to thank for that.  The mail was crushing.  And, if you visited any health food store, you were confronted with a petition to Congress.  It was an amazing outpouring. Utahns, of course, were very interested in this bill.  I really valued the input from Utah and the real-world perspective.  And I’m not just talking about manufacturers.  I’m talking about consumers, and health food store owners and staff, naturopaths, and others.  I think a big key to the success of the final bill was that it was negotiated directly by the principals, working off the Senate draft.  Waxman, Dingell, Richardson, Hatch, Harkin – we were all there at the table in Richardson’s Capitol office – the very last day of Congress in 1994.  It went right down to the wire, as I knew it would.  The success of this effort that produced a tremendous win for consumers was that the bill passed by unanimous consent in both bodies.  It was brought up by Chairman Waxman himself in the House, and I was gratified to bring it up in the Senate. DSHEA was a remarkable achievement.  The solid compromise has had relatively few problems in two decades, and there has not been a major amendment to its structure in the last 20 years. DSHEA Highlights DSHEA accomplished a number of things to promote public health.  The law created a crystal clear definition for dietary supplements and made clear they would be regulated as foods. DSHEA provided the FDA with abundant authority to protect public health through a defined safety standard and new safety authorities.  Instead of assuming all companies are making unsafe products, the law operates on the assumption that most products are safe, and the burden of proof is on the agency to prove otherwise. That safety authority was subsequently enhanced through a Hatch-Durbin law requiring reporting of serious adverse events, and through recall authority in the Food Safety Modernization Act. DSHEA also authorized good manufacturing practice guidelines specific to dietary supplements, which were phased in over time – although it shouldn’t have taken 10 years for those guidelines to be implemented. And, the law explicitly allowed certain third-party literature to be provided in conjunction with a sale and for statements of nutritional support, or structure or function claims. The law also established the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, to foster independent scientific research about the benefits of supplements, given FDA’s long-standing bias against these products. A Rational Framework for Regulation Since the passage of DSHEA, critics have asserted that dietary supplements are “unregulated” or that DSHEA ties the Secretary’s hands from acting.  Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. I want to be clear about my views on enforcement: DSHEA established a rational framework for FDA regulation of dietary supplements.  It did not shield bad actors from prosecution.  Nor should they be shielded. In fact, the FDA has abundant authority to remove unsafe products from the marketplace.  FDA has seizure, injunction, and criminal prosecution authority.  The agency can issue warning letters, seek recalls, issue civil monetary penalties, and use the power of publicity. So when critics of the law say dietary supplements are unregulated, or protected by the Hatch/Harkin law, they are just plain wrong. But I know the majority of dietary supplement companies are good actors who want to be regulated within a clear and well established framework.  That is certainly true in Utah. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of dietary supplements are safe products that over 150 million Americans use each year in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle at an affordable cost.  Spiked Products I am committed to protecting this industry and the integrity of its products.  One continual thorn in the side of responsible dietary supplement manufacturers is reports that illegally spiked products are being sold as dietary supplements.  These are, for example, weight loss products that illegally contain unapproved drugs.  In some cases, responsible manufacturers are unknowingly receiving tainted ingredients.  That is why testing and quality controls have to be an important component of manufacturing. But, in other cases, these illicit marketers know exactly what they are doing and they are hoping sell a lot of products before they are caught.  This should be a major target of FDA’s enforcement. Additionally, Senator Whitehouse and I have been concerned that athletes, and particularly young athletes, have been able to purchase steroid look-alikes that perform much like steroids, but because of legal loopholes cannot be banned by the Drug Enforcement Administration.  That is why we have worked for several years to pass “DASCA” – or the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act.  We are coming closer than ever to enactment – the bill under the leadership of Subcommittee Chair Joe Pitts passed the House in the middle of September and I’m hopeful it will pass the Senate this year. Other Issues I’m committed to advocating for your industry in other areas of concern, including possible guidance from the agency regarding new dietary ingredients. Since 1994, sales of dietary supplements have evolved into a very sophisticated marketplace with products sold worldwide.  At times, though, the industry has faced barriers to sales overseas.  As the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over international trade, my office has worked with many of you to give advice on specific country issues and we will continue to make this a priority. Whenever there are trade barriers to supplement sales overseas, we will work to see these barriers eliminated. As the role of social media continues to evolve for dietary supplements, as with other FDA-regulated products, the trend seems to be toward regulators holding companies responsible for what third parties are saying on social media such as Facebook or Twitter.  This, of course, is an unfortunate trend that should be reversed.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141024002337/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397662,"IN THE NEWS: Utah county strikes major deal on wilderness, property swaps",2014-10-23,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"A small county in northeast Utah has reached a big agreement on the future management of its public lands, offering a spark to a sweeping legislative effort being led by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah). Bishop today was scheduled to join Daggett County Commissioner Jerry Steglich, conservationists, county and state officials, and an off-highway vehicle advocate at the Utah State Capitol to tout a deal to designate more than 80,000 acres of wilderness, swap roughly 12,000 acres of federal and state lands, resolve road claims, and bolster OHV access, among other steps. It marked a major step forward for Bishop's effort to craft a bill balancing conservation, recreation and development on millions of acres of federal land in eastern Utah (Greenwire, Oct. 22, 2013). Daggett, the smallest of the counties involved, was the last to join Bishop's effort and the first out of the gate with a solution for its public lands. ""What we are trying to do here is put Daggett out as a template or a microcosm,"" Bishop toldGreenwire this morning. Bishop said he hopes to introduce a draft multicounty bill by January. By that time, he will likely be chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, a position he said would allow him to expedite the bill through the House. Today's deal, which is summarized in a three-page list of principles, was also endorsed by Gov. Gary Herbert (R), whose office yesterday called it a ""pathbreaking model"" for other counties working with Bishop. Conservationists applauded the deal. ""We'd love to see this exported to other counties,"" said Tim Peterson, Utah wildlands program manager for the Grand Canyon Trust, who attended today's event. ""We hope it will create some momentum."" The Daggett deal would add nearly 50,000 acres of Forest Service land to the High Uintas Wilderness, a massive east-west expanse of snow-covered mountains dotted with trout-filled lakes and some 400 miles of streams. It would also designate about 33,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management wilderness including the sandstone ridges of the Diamond Breaks wilderness study area near Browns Park, as well as a 31,000-acre BLM conservation area and 14 miles of the Green River as wild and scenic. The agencies would also acquire 13,000 acres of state trust lands trapped within the conservation areas and along the Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area. For Utah and Daggett, the deal would transfer more than 11,000 acres of federal lands to the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) -- including energy-rich areas and 6,800 acres at the junction of U.S. 191 and State Highway 44 that Daggett would like to see developed as a summer and winter resort, with possible residences and a ski hill. Other land transactions would support a shooting range, landfill site and power substation in Daggett, while allowing an association of cabin owners to acquire the Forest Service lands under their homes. ""We are trying to garner new interests and other activities that will bring more people to our beautiful county,"" Daggett County Commissioner Karen Perry told The Salt Lake Tribune this week. Perry could not be reached yesterday, and Steglich declined to comment ahead of today's event. The deal also promotes all-terrain vehicle trails in Dutch John Canyon and Sears Canyon and would release about 3,000 acres of federal lands from wilderness management. Moreover, conservationists would ask sponsors in Congress to remove Daggett County from the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, a bill that calls for 9 million acres of wilderness in Utah but that is opposed by the Utah delegation. Lastly, the deal includes some resolution to Daggett's road claims under the Civil War-era law known as R.S. 2477, which, until its repeal in 1976, gave settlers the right to build roads and acquire rights of way over federal lands not yet reserved from public use. Utah and its counties are trying to retroactively prove R.S. 2477 claims over some 12,000 roads spanning about 36,000 miles. The Daggett deal would maintain access for road claims that are outside the proposed conservation areas and currently open to motorized use. The state and county would relinquish claims to roads within the conservation areas. Stakeholders agreed to an ""appropriate administrative process"" to resolve the remaining claims. ""The boundaries are good; the management language is good,"" said Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the primary proponent of the Red Rock bill, which has fought the R.S. 2477 claims in court. ""A fair amount of trust and goodwill has been built."" Other environmental groups represented at the Capitol this morning were the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited. Groene said the Natural Resources Defense Council has also backed the plan. Also scheduled to appear at today's event were John Andrews, associate director of SITLA; Mark Ward, counsel for the Utah Association of Counties; and Mike Swenson, who led the Utah Shared Access Alliance, a motorized recreation advocacy group that backs Utah's bid to take over federal lands. 'Yeoman's work' Stakeholders took field trips over the spring and summer to Spirit Lake in the Uintas and Browns Park, a remote mountain valley that follows the Green and was a notorious hideout for outlaws, including Butch Cassidy. Peterson, of the Grand Canyon Trust, said credit for the agreement is due to Casey Snider, a Bishop staffer who formerly worked for Trout Unlimited and previously lived in Daggett. ""He did yeoman's work,"" said Bishop, who hired Snider a few months ago. Daggett's early success can be attributed, in part, to its small size -- its population is just over 1,000 -- and its unique set of public lands challenges, Bishop said. Just 4 percent of land in Daggett is privately held, which poses economic and fiscal challenges, Bishop said. Swapping federal and state trust lands will benefit Utah schoolchildren and provide new county revenue, Bishop said. Conservationists say it will ensure that state lands within roadless areas are not developed. But reaching similar agreement in other eastern Utah counties, including Uintah, Grand, San Juan and Emery -- where there are more competing interests for wilderness, motorized recreation, oil and gas, potash and oil sands -- remains a herculean task. Battlegrounds include Hatch Point, a pinyon-and-juniper plateau overlooking Canyonlands National Park near Moab that is coveted by wilderness advocates as well as developers of potash, an ingredient used in fertilizer. Stakeholders must strike a tough compromise on which of millions of acres will be designated as wilderness and which will be released or designated for multiple use, including drilling and ATV use. SUWA has identified roughly 6 million acres in the Red Rock bill. Bishop's bill must also resolve Utah's and counties' road claims under R.S. 2477, a labor-intensive task given the sheer number of claims at stake. Without a resolution, the law could give local officials control over routes through primitive federal lands, potentially blowing up a legislative deal with greens.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=64333cc6-14bc-469e-ade7-213b956eef71,Hatch Unveils Innovation Agenda for the 114th Congress,2014-10-22,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"As Republicans seek to end Senate gridlock and advance policies that promote economic growth and make America more prosperous, Sen. Hatch’s innovation agenda is a critical priority for the next Congress. Key excerpts: Our constitutional values teach that the federal government has an important role to play in fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth. But it should not be one of heavy-handed regulator.  Rather, government’s proper role is to act as a facilitator, creating an environment that encourages research and development to drive our prosperity and quality of life in the decades to come. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I have been working with colleagues and stakeholders to develop an innovation agenda for the coming Congress.  On Addressing Patent Trolls: In particular, we must enact legislation to combat abusive patent litigation.  ...Through common-sense reforms to our patent laws – including fee shifting, heightened pleading and discovery standards, and a mechanism to enable recovery of fees against shell companies – we can ensure that American resources are used to innovate and create jobs, not wasted to settle or litigate frivolous claims. On Protecting Trade Secrets: Another way to protect America’s innovation is to create a harmonized, uniform federal standard for protecting trade secrets. Trade secrets, such as customer lists, formulas, and manufacturing processes, are an essential form of intellectual property... It’s time to enact trade secret legislation that enables U.S. companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court. On Balancing Privacy and Responsible Data Storage:  We are long overdue to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act – or ECPA – to require a warrant for all e-mail content within the United States and to safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access. ... Congress must ensure that law enforcement has the tools to execute search warrants where necessary, so long as officials comply with the laws of the foreign country where the electronic data is stored. ... Overregulation, however, is not the answer. Any new data policies must balance consumer privacy and the benefits of big data in people’s lives. On Enhancing America’s Competitive Workforce: Central to innovation is enhancing America’s competitive workforce. We can do this by streamlining the hiring process for high-skilled individuals entering the United States … [and] investing in STEM education and training. Heading into the 114th Congress, Democrats must drop their insistence on immediate comprehensive reform, particularly when individual elements—like high-skilled immigration—can win broad support and help pave the way for additional and more far-reaching reforms in the future. The full remarks are pasted below. --- Senator Orrin G. Hatch An Innovation Agenda for the 114th Congress Remarks as prepared for delivery Overstock.com Corporate Office – Salt Lake City, Utah Tuesday, October 21, 2014 It’s great to be with you this afternoon. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to be here.   As I travel around the state and throughout the country, I am often asked why Congress doesn’t do more to enact pro-technology, pro-innovation policies. After all, in most of our communities, high-tech job growth is consistently faster than other areas of the private sector.  Here in Utah, we have nearly 100,000 people working in the tech industry—a sector that is growing at five times the rate of the national economy.  Throughout the nation, demand for high-tech jobs is expected to surpass demand for jobs in other sectors until at least 2020.  So every state in the country has a vested interest in keeping our technology industry at the forefront of the global economy.  America has made extraordinary strides in innovation.  For decades, we have been the world’s leader in developing new technologies and advancing the Internet age.  But we are not the only nation in the hunt.  Across the globe, and particularly in China and other parts of Asia, our international competitors are working furiously to catch up.  If the United States is to enjoy continued success in the technology arena, policymakers must ensure a legal and regulatory landscape that will enable our innovators to thrive. As we seek to encourage innovation, however, we must also recognize limits on what government can and should do.  Our constitutional values teach that the federal government has an important role to play in fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth.  But it should not be one of heavy-handed regulator.  Rather, government’s proper role is to act as a facilitator, creating an environment that encourages research and development to drive our prosperity and quality of life in the decades to come. As chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I have been working with colleagues and stakeholders to develop an innovation agenda for the coming Congress.  Recently, I gave a high-level overview of this agenda during a policy speech at the Reagan Ranch in California.  Today I would like to speak in greater detail about some of the initiatives that I believe are critical to ensuring the continued success of our high-tech economy.  I.  Protect America’s Innovation and Inventiveness  First, Congress must act to protect America’s innovation and inventiveness.  An essential part of fostering innovation is protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. Patent Litigation Reform In particular, we must enact legislation to combat abusive patent litigation.  As you well know, patent trolls are having a crippling effect on innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy—ranging from main street businesses to America’s largest technology companies. A recent study found that abusive patent litigation costs our economy $60 billion each year.  Through abusive and meritless litigation, patent trolls—which are often shell companies that do not make or sell anything—seek to extort settlements from innovators throughout the country.  These settlements divert capital that could otherwise be used for innovative research or technological development.  Many patent trolls target small businesses that do not have the resources to defend themselves in court.  Even though these small businesses have done nothing wrong, they often agree to unwarranted settlements to avoid costly litigation. And those who do fight back are forced to spend millions in litigation costs, often with no chance of enforcing a court-ordered award against a judgment-proof plaintiff. Through common-sense reforms to our patent laws—including fee shifting, heightened pleading and discovery standards, and a mechanism to enable recovery of fees against shell companies—we can ensure that American resources are used to innovate and create jobs, not wasted to settle or litigate frivolous claims. I intend to do everything in my power next Congress to pass such legislation. Protecting Trade Secrets Another way to protect America’s innovation is to create a harmonized, uniform federal standard for protecting trade secrets.  Trade secrets, such as customer lists, formulas, and manufacturing processes, are an essential form of intellectual property. Yet, trade secrets are the only form of U.S. intellectual property where misuse does not provide its owner with a federal private right of action. Currently, trade secret owners must rely on state courts or federal prosecutors to protect their rights.  The multistate procedural and jurisdictional issues that arise in such cases are costly and complicated, and the Department of Justice lacks the resources to prosecute many such cases. These systemic issues put companies at a great disadvantage, since the victims of trade secret theft need to recover information quickly before it crosses state lines or leaves the country. Unfortunately, in today’s global information age, there are endless examples of how easy—and rewarding—it can be to steal trade secrets. In June 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that authorities arrested a former engineer for a medical-device maker after he attempted to relocate to India with trade secrets he stole from his former employer.  As a staff engineer, the employee had substantial access to the company’s trade secrets, including a self-administered disposable pen injector still in development. Weeks before quitting, the employee downloaded an estimated 8,000 files, including many related to the pen in development, onto external hard drives and thumb drives. The sheer amount of stolen intellectual property was enormous.   While the maximum penalty for trade secrets theft is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, few of these thefts actually result in federal prosecutions. And while $250,000 may sound like a steep penalty, most stolen trade secrets amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits and sales. Even when thefts are prosecuted, victim companies rarely recover the full extent of their loss.  According to the FBI, when Greg Chung stole Boeing trade secrets related to the U.S. Space Shuttle and gave them to China, he gave away an estimated $2 billion in trade secrets.  Even though Mr. Chung was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison, Boeing received no compensation for its staggering loss of technology.  It is past time to enact trade secret legislation that enables U.S. companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court.  Combating Online Piracy A final priority for protecting America’s innovation and inventiveness is developing policies to foster a voluntary and self-regulatory framework to combat online piracy. For too long we have seen digital thieves steal vast amounts of content on the Internet. A 2014 Business Software Alliance survey confirmed that globally a full 43 percent of PC software was installed without proper licensing. The survey found that the commercial value of these unlicensed installations was $62.7 billion, with emerging economies continuing to account for the majority.  Now is the time for Congress and industry stakeholders to come together with a renewed focus to combat online piracy. II.  Ensure Responsible Data Stewardship  The second element of an innovation agenda must involve ensuring responsible data stewardship.  With new forms of electronic communication and data storage, policymakers must act so that our nation’s privacy laws correspond to present realities and keep up with technological advances. Most immediately, we are long overdue to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act—or ECPA—to require a warrant for all e-mail content within the United States and to safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access.  Enacted in 1986, ECPA prohibits communications service providers from intercepting or disclosing e-mail, telephone conservations, or data stored electronically, unless such disclosure is authorized. Virtually everyone agrees that Americans should enjoy the same privacy protections in their online communications that they do in their offline communications. But Congress has not adequately updated the law since its enactment and technological developments have resulted in disparate treatment. As currently written, ECPA requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant for e-mails that are less than six months old, but only a subpoena to access older electronic communications.  Think about your own e-mail account. You might have hundreds of e-mails that you’ve received over many years.  Additionally, ECPA has allowed law enforcement to access e-mail that has been opened with just a subpoena, even though a search warrant would be required for a printout of the same communication sitting on your desk. These conflicting standards should cause great concern to everyone who values personal privacy.  To make matters more complicated, ECPA is silent on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. For that reason alone, Congress should amend the law. Storing digital information around the world – a practice that did not exist when ECPA became law – is now routine.  Moreover, the federal government has taken advantage of this statutory silence to apply its own standard, requiring access to data abroad if the company storing it has a presence in the United States.  This presents unique challenges for a number of industries, which increasingly face a conflict between American law and the law of the countries where the electronic data is stored. Additionally, if the U.S. expects to extend its warrants extraterritorially, we should not be surprised if other countries—including China and Russia—seek to do the same for e-mails of Americans and others stored in this country. Congress must ensure that law enforcement has the tools to execute search warrants where necessary, so long as officials comply with the laws of the foreign country where the electronic data is stored. In addition to updating ECPA, we must support policies that protect consumer privacy while promoting the benefits of data-driven technologies.  New technologies to create, analyze, and disseminate vast quantities of data fuel an increasingly important set of social and economic activities in nearly every sector of our economy. These data-driven technologies offer great potential for improving health care, education, financial services, consumer products, and even sports.  The possibilities of data-driven technologies are endless, and have already provided consumers with more choices. But at the same time our big-data economy presents privacy and transparency challenges that merit everyone’s attention. Some have advocated for new, burdensome regulations. Overregulation, however, is not the answer. Any new data policies must balance consumer privacy and the benefits of big data in people’s lives.  III.  Protect America’s Critical Infrastructure  A third element of our innovation agenda must be protecting America’s critical infrastructure.  Computers control nearly everything we use in our daily lives. They control our cars, phones, water supplies, power grids, financial services, retail networks, food production, and in many respects, our military capabilities. Fortunately, our adversaries have not succeeded in physically damaging our nation’s interdependent critical infrastructure. But we remain vulnerable to persistent threats from cyber criminals.  Let me outline a few guiding principles that should be included in any cybersecurity legislation.  First, Congress must provide proper incentives, like liability protection, to encourage the private sector to share cyber-threat information with the government. Currently, businesses are reluctant to share information because they fear legal repercussions. But the government and the private sector must work together to fend off cyber-attacks.  Cybersecurity legislation must also strike the right balance between protecting our nation’s computing infrastructure and protecting individual privacy rights. Thus, information sharing between businesses and the government must be tailored to the recipients’ actual security responsibilities.  A voluntary, non-regulatory approach is most likely to yield consensus legislation. DHS and other government agencies can provide advice and resources to improve our nation’s cybersecurity posture, but—as in other areas—additional, burdensome regulations are not the answer.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must build a strong cybersecurity workforce. Enacting cybersecurity legislation will mean little if there are no trained professionals prepared to tackle our nation’s cyber challenges.  We must encourage our young people and attract high-skilled workers from around the world to take up cyber-related disciplines. IV.  Spur High-Tech Investment Through Tax Reform A fourth part of any innovation agenda is spurring high-tech investment through tax reform.   For example, we should incentivize businesses to invest in research and development by making the R&D tax credit permanent.  This tax credit has existed as a temporary provision in the tax code since its inception 33 years ago. In that time, the R&D tax credit has sunset 16 times.  In fact, the credit technically does not exist at this moment because it expired at the end of 2013.  The temporary nature of the R&D tax credit, along with these frequent sunsets, make it a less reliable – and hence less effective – incentive.  Congress should make it permanent.  I’m glad the House passed a bill to do just that.  I’ve introduced legislation in the Senate that would do the same.      We also need to lower the corporate tax rate.  At 35 percent, our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is a chokehold on the economy.  That is unacceptable.  I hope we can get the corporate tax rate down to 25 percent, if not lower. In addition, we need to transition to a territorial tax system.  Right now, American companies are taxed on their worldwide income.  But the trend in the developed world is to tax corporations in their home country only on the profits they make at home. Japan and the UK were just the latest major countries to transition from a worldwide tax system to a territorial system.  If the U.S. transitioned to a territorial tax system, our businesses would be able to compete much more effectively in the global marketplace. I’m sure all of you have read the news about U.S. corporate inversions, where a U.S. company changes its corporate structure to move its tax domicile offshore and become a foreign company. Such inversions are happening in large measure because of our high corporate tax rate, and our worldwide tax system.  And they demonstrate just how dysfunctional the U.S. tax code has become. By reforming our tax code, we can boost prosperity and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this nation great.   V.  Enhance America’s Competitive Workforce  A fifth element central to innovation is enhancing America’s competitive workforce. We can do this by streamlining the hiring process for high-skilled individuals entering the United States to work in STEM-related fields. Equally important is investing in STEM education and training.  Our high-skilled worker shortage has become a crisis.  In April, for the second year in a row, the government reached its current H-1B quota just five days after it began accepting applications.  Employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 85,000 available visas. American companies were thus unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers they need to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies, and compete with international competitors. Despite this growing crisis, Senate Democrats and President Obama have insisted on an all-or-nothing approach to immigration reform.  They demand comprehensive reform that addresses all of our immigration problems in a single bill, or nothing at all.  I am not opposed to a comprehensive approach. In fact, I joined many colleagues on both sides of the aisle last year to support such a bill in the Senate.  But heading into the 114th Congress, Democrats must drop their insistence on immediate comprehensive reform, particularly when individual elements—like high-skilled immigration—can win broad support and help pave the way for additional and more far-reaching reforms in the future. VI.  Foster a Modern, Competitive, and Open Internet  A sixth element of our innovation agenda is fostering a modern, competitive, and open Internet. This requires promoting private-sector innovation and deployment of broadband networks while simultaneously limiting unnecessary and burdensome Internet regulations. Net neutrality is a terrible idea.  The last thing we need is government telling ISPs how to carve up bandwidth.  Keep the Internet free and it will continue to drive our economy forward. In addition to promoting broadband investment, Congress should support policies that encourage increased deployment and adoption of mobile online services and content, including increased access to licensed and unlicensed spectrum.  VII.  Eliminate Corrosive Barriers to Trade To spur innovation we must also seek to eliminate corrosive barriers to trade.  U.S. companies doing business overseas face significant tariff barriers and a proliferation of behind-the-border barriers to trade in goods and services. These obstacles include discriminatory technical regulations and standards that deviate from international norms.  A more balanced trade environment will require U.S. trading partners to allow cross-border data flows and eliminate data localization mandates and other impediments to digital trade. We must also work with our partners to raise the standard of intellectual property protections across the globe to the level currently found in U.S. law.  VIII.  Improve Antitrust Review and Standards-setting Processes A final ingredient in our innovation agenda is improving antitrust review and standards-setting processes. This can be accomplished by promoting responsible enforcement of our nation’s antitrust laws and supporting cost-effective measures to streamline the antitrust review process. We must also ensure that the standards-setting process is functioning effectively and establish policies that enable companies to compete on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Conclusion These priorities form an ambitious and comprehensive innovation agenda.  Fostering technological development in the ways I have suggested will strengthen our economy while keeping government in its proper constitutional role—as a helpful partner, not an all-present planner.  I welcome your input on how best to implement this strategy going forward.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141024002341/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397661,Utah Public Lands Initiative Takes Important Step Forward,2014-10-21,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City—Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-01), Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert, and Daggett County Commissioners today joined representatives from the conservation, outdoor recreation, and sportsmens’ community, to unveil the draft Daggett County lands proposal agreement as part of the broader Utah Public Lands Initiative. Speakers at the event also included Scott Groene- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, John Andrews- School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Paul Spitler-The Wilderness Society, Mike Swenson- Utah Shared Access Alliance, Tim Peterson-Grand Canyon Trust, Mark Clemons-Sierra Club, and Dave Glenn-Trout Unlimited. Utah Association of Counties Mark Ward, Marcia Argust from Pew, and Utah State Senator Kevin Van Tassell have also joined in support of the framework unveiled today at the Utah State Capitol. “The Daggett County proposal represents an important milestone in the efforts to advance the Utah Public Lands Initiative. I commend all those who came to the table to find common sense solutions and compromises to some of the biggest challenges that have plagued public lands policy in the state for more than three decades.  The draft proposal that will be included in the final PLI legislation includes some key components such as economic development for the county, economic opportunities for SITLA, land and water conservation, increased opportunities for motorized and non-motorized recreation, and advancements for the sportsmens’ community,” said Congressman Bishop. “This proposal is the result of significant negotiations and compromise on behalf of everyone involved. I’m proud that we are able to bring new opportunities for economic development to Daggett County as a result of our efforts and that was always our primary goal. Ensuring the future success and economic viability of our county remained our number one priority and this proposal reflects that,” said Daggett County Commissioner Jerry Steglich. “I’m pleased that each party involved in the proposal recognizes the importance of supporting the future economic growth of Daggett County. The ongoing uncertainty that has plagued public land use has been a challenge for Daggett County and the other counties involved in the Public Lands Initiative. The proposal introduced today is a key step forward for Daggett County. Some concerns and challenges remain but this brings a clear path forward and I’m proud to lend my support to this important initiative,” said Senator Kevin Van Tassell.   Specifically, the Daggett County proposal includes the following key provisions: COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · County to receive 800 acres of Forest Service land adjacent to Dutch John for a shooting range, power substation, and landfill. · County to receive increased annual revenue from the transfer of energy revenue producing site to SITLA. · County to benefit from SITLA-Forest Service land exchange that may facilitate development of year-round resort. · County to cooperatively manage historic Swett and Jarvie ranches to maintain their economic value as tourist attractions. INCREASED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES ON UTAH SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION · Large SITLA land exchange that will trade scattered and low economic value SITLA holdings for consolidated holdings that have higher revenue potential. · Lands to be acquired by SITLA include an energy revenue producing site and Forest Service land that is sought for year-round resort development. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION AND RESOLUTION OF WILDERNESS · Establish over 80,000 acres of wilderness on BLM and Forest Service land. · Establishing a 30,000-acre conservation area. · Designate a portion of the Green River as a wild and scenic river. · Forest Service and BLM to acquire state lands within conservation and wilderness areas. RESOLUTION OF R.S. 2477 · County to receive rights on open routes on BLM land outside of proposed wilderness and conservation area. · County and State of Utah to relinquish claims on routes within proposed wilderness and conservation area. · Establish a process for county to apply for rights-of-way on closed routes on BLM land outside of proposed wilderness and conservation area. OTHER BENEFITS TO DAGGETT COUNTY · Land exchange to facilitate a homeowners association acquiring their home sites from the Forest Service. · Facilitate the exchange or sale of the Forest Service lands containing privately-owned cabins to the cabin owners. INCREASED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES · Protection for important hunting habitat as a conservation area. · Ensure that the Forest Service maintains specified campgrounds. · Upon passage of legislation, support the reopening of the Sears Canyon route to ATV traffic and the establishment of an ATV route up Dutch John Canyon.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141024003014/http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=a618d6c8-681f-4076-99e1-049b1aca2150,A Conservative Vision for the Next Generation,2014-10-21,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but visiting Hillsdale reminds me of what a special place a college campus can be at its best. The last time I was on a college campus was this past August when I held a series of town hall events across Utah, many of which were held in college auditoriums.  Every town hall event is unique, but for the most part they all share one common feature. This may come as a surprise to many of you, but, despite often being hosted on college campuses, the average age at most of my town hall events is – how should I say this? – slightly higher than the average age at the college where the event is taking place. But there was one town hall this year that was different. At this particular town hall I noticed a group of young people sitting in the audience. When I say “young,” I don’t mean young for one of my town hall events – I mean young... young like all the students in this auditorium. So naturally when I saw them my first thought was: they must be lost. After all, we were on a college campus; chances were that they accidentally stumbled into the wrong event. Polite Utahns that they were, I figured they were waiting until just the right moment – perhaps when we all bowed our heads for the opening prayer – to get up and make a break for the exit. But much to my surprise, through the prayer, pledge of allegiance, and even my opening remarks – which usually send at least a couple people to the door – they remained right where they were. As it turns out, they were students from another nearby college, and they had come with one of their professors. I discovered this because, after my opening remarks, the professor raised his hand and asked respectfully, on behalf of his students: “Could you please explain to these young people why exactly they should care about what you have to say?” It was a great question, even a profound question. And I have been thinking about it, in particular, since Dr. Arnn invited me to speak here this evening. As I saw it, this professor was actually asking two separate questions. First, why should young people care about politics, period? And second, even if young people do care about politics, why should they care about what I – a conservative member of the Republican Party – have to say about it? Young Americans have the dual distinction of being the age cohort that is most disengaged from politics, and also the cohort most supportive of the Democratic Party. It occurred to me that, in a way, he was asking these questions not just for the group of students that he brought with him, but for young Americans everywhere. And so I’d like to use my time this evening to try and answer these two questions. First, why does politics matter? To be clear, I’m not talking about the politics you see in popular culture, on Scandal or House of Cards, or the politics of attack ads during campaign season. What I mean here is politics in the highest sense of the word. Politics in this sense is the activity first of ordering and then of sustaining the regime and the political constitution of a nation. It is the province of common deliberation over the common good, guided by “reflection and choice,” as Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 1, rather than dependent on “accident and force.”  Politics is about self-government... it’s about governing ourselves as a people, and governing ourselves as men and women of good character. And politics always matters.  In Federalist 10, James Madison explained why: “As long as the reason of man continues [to be] fallible, and [as long as] he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” Man’s fallible nature: this is the eternal source of our political disputes... this is the reason politics still matters today. But for those who have never read the Federalist papers, or been lucky enough to hear Dr. Arnn explain the word “architectonic,” there is a more obvious and practical reason young people should care about politics… because politics shapes the world they inhabit. Politics may not dictate your path in life. But it absolutely will dictate whether that path is clear or obstructed, safe or treacherous. Young adults are constantly told that they are our country’s future. But in truth, they are a large and growing part of our present. In truth, the world is becoming more and more yours every day, with one glaring exception. What defines the world around us today? Choice. Customization. Community. Innovation. When young people today see something that’s not working, they expect that it can be fixed, through some combination of ingenuity, cooperation, and technology. Whatever you need, there’s an app for that. Tired of sifting through a media filter? Get news straight from the source on Twitter. Nothing good on TV? Fire up Netflix.  Need a ride? Open up Uber and Lyft on your smart phone. Hotels too expensive? Get a place through Craigslist or AirBnB. Local restaurants not doing it for you? There’s probably a food truck with a social media account somewhere nearby. And when something big needs doing, beyond an individual’s own needs, everyone chips in and comes together to do it. They crowd-source, they Kickstart. This localized, customized, personalized approach to solving problems through community and cooperation is transforming every aspect of American society, except one – the one with the power to control all the others. While decentralized networks of mutual benefit adapt to an ever-changing world by providing better, more personalized services, faster and at lower cost all the time, government’s approach to new challenges is always and everywhere to keep things exactly the same. Resist the change. Preserve the status quo. Punish the disruptive innovators. This is not a hypothetical scenario. In fact, in every single sector I mentioned above – the media, entertainment, travel, food service, investing – the leading incumbents have urged government to restrict the change. And in many cases they have been successful. Americans are moving in a direction of greater individual and community empowerment – while public policy is moving in the opposite direction, toward consolidation and centralization. It’s going to be up to America’s next generation to decide which way we go. So the answer to the first question – why should young people care about politics – is, on a certain level, pretty straightforward: politics matters because it will in many ways define the world you inherent, and set the parameters of the good you can do in it. What about question number two? If the young should indeed be interested in politics, why should they pay any attention to what a Republican politician has to say? After all, most of you have probably heard the old adage, often attributed to Churchill: “If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.” There’s probably some truth to this – though, for what it’s worth, I’ve been heartless all my life. But in truth, I believe young Americans’ recent opposition to the Republican Party has much less to do with young Americans than with the G.O.P. itself.  For too long – at least since the presidency of Ronald Reagan – conservatives have failed to make our case to young people. We have failed to explain how the conservative view of politics is truly distinct from – and superior to – the progressive view. The most important disagreements between conservatives and progressives today are often over the biggest things: our conception of justice and the common good, our understanding of the good life and human flourishing. But I think the most clarifying way to bring out these differences between the Right and the Left is to compare the visions of American life underlying our immediate political and policy agendas. These visions represent the basis for how each side understands the present and what they hope for in the future... they inform how we diagnose a problem and they shape the solutions we propose.  One of the clearest and most revealing illustrations of the progressive vision of American society that I have ever come across was the Obama campaign’s web slideshow from the summer of 2012 called “Life of Julia.” Anyone remember it? For those fortunate enough to have avoided it, the “Life of Julia” was a series of animated slides telling the story of a fictional woman who was meant to represent the average American woman. Viewers could scroll through the slides and see how, at every stage of life from age 3 to 67, Julia was not just enriched – but fulfilled – by a federal government program. When I saw it, I wasn’t sure if I should laugh or cry... I think I did both. But I also learned from it, because it revealed the Left’s extraordinarily thin and empty view of American life. Theirs is a vision of society in which there are only two players: Julia and Washington, D.C.... the individual and the state. All other relationships and pursuits are virtually non-existent. And to the extent they appear in Julia’s life, they are incidental to – and also dependent upon – the benevolence of the state. Julia’s family is mentioned twice, but only in passing and only as a conduit to additional government benefits. Community makes just a single appearance, and it’s not until the age of 67, when Julia begins receiving Social Security benefits, which – somehow, someway – [QUOTE] “allows her to volunteer at a community garden.”  But this isn’t what life looks like, is it? The conservative vision of American society begins from a very simple observation: in the real world – not Julia’s world – we are not isolated individuals and we’re not wards of the state. Indeed, our lives are lived – and made meaningful – in the space between these two extremities... as husbands and wives; parents and children; teachers and students; neighbors and neighborhoods; volunteers and congregations; bosses and employees; businesses and customers; clubs, teams, and associations. We are, in a word, citizens... who deliberate, participate, self-govern, and consent to be governed by our fellow citizens.  It is in this vital space between the isolated individual and the impersonal – often oppressive – state where lives intersect, relationships are formed, knowledge is shared, opportunity is created, and happiness is pursued.  It is in this space where Americans have always come together, in the free-market economy and voluntary civil society, to meet each other’s needs, improve each other’s lives, and overcome common challenges. We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But really, they are networks – networks of people and information and opportunity, where your success depends on your service. The miracle of these networks – what makes them uniquely powerful – is that they impel everyone – regardless of race, religion, or wealth – to depend not just on themselves or the government, but on each other. It is these relationships of interdependence and these communities of mutual cooperation that are at the heart of the conservative vision of America. They form the very fiber of our Founders’ vision of a self-governing republic.   The progressive, Life-of-Julia vision conceives of only two possible scenarios in life: radical, you’re-on-your-own individualism or all-encompassing government collectivism. Conservatives reject this as a false choice – and reality proves us right. America has always been – and continues to be – a place where the most frequent, the most effective, and the most enriching forms of common action occur in that vital space between the individual and the state. Tocqueville famously marveled at the robust, vibrant, dynamic, and sometimes even boisterous public and civic life in America. Unlike any other country in the world, he admired, “In the United States ... There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals.” If you think about it, that’s just another way of saying... “There’s an app for that.” In Tocqueville’s mind, the American people’s capacity – and penchant – for joining together in pursuit of a common cause represented their chief virtue not because of what they did, but because of what they learned. When “common affairs are treated in common,” he explained, “each man [comes to learn] that he is not as independent of [his neighbors] as he at first fancied,” and he learns that to obtain the support of his neighbors “he must often lend them his cooperation.” In other words, in America freedom has never meant “you’re on your own” – it will always mean “we’re all in this together”... we all have mutual responsibilities to each other and all of our fellow citizens. And it’s important to note that this conservative vision is not anti-government.  Constitutional government is necessary to protect and expand the space for the institutions of the free market and civil society to thrive. It is also – especially at the local level – one of the most important institutions of civil society. In Tocqueville’s time, the township was the most common form of local government, and he praised its centrality in American life. “Without the institutions of a township,” he said, “a nation can give itself a free government, but it does not have the spirit of freedom.”   Progressives, of course, reject all of this. For them, everything that stands between the individual and the federal government is viewed with suspicion. Compared to the objectivity and sophistication of bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, families, neighborhoods, religious and civic associations, businesses, and local and state governments are instruments of prejudice and sanctuaries of privilege. As the Left sees it, only government workers in the nation’s capital are sufficiently enlightened and detached from their own self-interest to act in the common good... and of course it’s just a coincidence that Washington, D.C. is surrounded by six of the ten wealthiest counties in the country. As the Life of Julia demonstrated, community is not a place to find opportunity – it’s not where you learn critical skills and habits like empathy, self-control, and cooperation. No, in the progressive vision, community is where you go when you retire. The trouble with the progressive, Life-of-Julia vision isn’t just its hollow view of life or the creepy omnipresence of the state, but rather its success in establishing the terms of the debate. For too long their binary view of society has been firmly imprinted in the minds of America’s youth not because it’s more attractive than the conservative vision, but because it’s gone virtually unchallenged. Even worse than surrendering the field, too often the Republican Party has actually embraced the progressive caricature of conservatism as radical individualism. Thus the task facing conservatives today is, quite simply, to offer an alternative... the true conservative vision that rejects the false choice peddled by progressives and proves there is a path between “Galt’s Gulch” and Detroit. Exposing the ugliness and emptiness of the progressive vision won’t be enough to advance our cause. We also need to tell our story – we need to demonstrate, in word and in deed, the virtues and the humanity of our vision. We will fail if we continue to limit ourselves to opposing government dependency. We must also celebrate the dignity of our interdependence with each other, and embrace the responsibilities that are indivisible from our freedoms.  It will always be our duty to reject the intolerance, conformity, and coercion of hyperactive government. But we must do more. We must also bear witness to the true diversity – of thought and of character – that naturally flourish when individuals, families, and communities are free to live in accordance with their convictions and the dictates of their conscience. We don’t need to give up our support for investing in physical and financial capital. But we must also insist that the most important investments we make as a nation will be in human and social capital. Above all we must recognize that breaking the progressives’ monopoly on the imagination of America’s youth is going to take much more than a politician giving a speech, or hosting a town hall event... it’s going to take the persistent, determined efforts of everyone in this room. Bringing in the rising generation to the conservative movement is about more than winning votes – it’s about changing hearts and minds. It is a cultural project with political implications. And I’m here tonight to ask all of you not to join me in this effort, but to lead it.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141024003054/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397660,MEDIA ADVISORY-Bishop to Hold 10th Annual Education Conference at Utah State Capitol,2014-10-20,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON—Tomorrow,  more than 160 high school students from Utah’s First Congressional District will attend the 10th annual Education Conference hosted by Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) at the Utah State Capitol.  Each year students join together at the state capitol to engage in discussions on topics pertaining to the three branches of federal government, history, and the election process. “I am grateful to the teachers, staff, volunteers, and speakers who help make this conference possible for students each year. Having spent the better part of three decades as a public school teacher in Utah, I recognize the importance of providing students with opportunities for practical application of their textbook studies. This event is a great venue for students to engage with their peers and expand their understanding of government and history outside of the classroom,” said Bishop. During the conference, students will participate in group discussions, conduct case study sessions, and discuss and debate current policy issues being addressed by Congress.  Guest speakers this year include Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox as well as Judge Ted Stewart. Students were selected by their teachers for attendance at this event.  Invitations were sent to all high schools and school districts located in the First Congressional District. WHAT:         Annual Education Conference hosted by Congressman Rob Bishop WHERE:      Utah State Capitol Complex                         350 N. State Street                         Salt Lake City, UT 84114 DATE:            Tuesday, October 21, 2014 TIME:            9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. MDT   *As always, this event is open to all members of the media*",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=886075e6-cd64-4e69-95ba-4193910baf9e,Hatch on Nomination of Patent and Trademark Office Director,2014-10-17,2014,2014-10,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 and Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, issued the following statement after President Obama nominated Michelle Lee as Under Secretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: “The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has not had a Senate-confirmed Director in nearly two years, so I’m pleased the Obama Administration finally put forth a nominee.  As I told President Obama in my letter to him in June asking for a nominee, this is a critical time for the USPTO.  These are challenging times that demand strong leadership at the USPTO to fuel our nation’s economic strength by harnessing our intellectual property capital.  As with any nominee, there is a confirmation process that Michelle Lee must go through and I look forward to reviewing her qualifications and participating in the process as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cb516a6c-90d4-4613-a183-4518b1933cd6,Hatch Views F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Assembly in Texas,2014-10-16,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) traveled to Fort Worth, Texas, today to view firsthand the construction of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. Hill Air Force Base will be home to 72 of the stealth fighter jets starting in 2015 and perform the long-term sustainment on more than 2,200 U.S. military jets with additional workload coming from international allies. “The capabilities of the F-35 fighter jet are unparalleled, and it was great to see firsthand some of our country’s next generation fighter jets being built,” Hatch said.  “The jet is being built with care in Texas and will be flown and sustained by some of our Air Force’s finest at Hill. It’s been a long road and I enjoyed seeing the first of many F-35s at Hill last September for depot work and I look forward to seeing the aircraft flying in Utah next year as part of the Air Force’s first operational squadron.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-concerned-over-va-inspector-general-findings-salt-lake-city,Chaffetz concerned over VA Inspector General findings in Salt Lake City,2014-10-08,2014,2014-10,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=49248332-9172-4eeb-b12e-7dbaf51ef9db,"Hatch at the Reagan Ranch Center: GOP Must Promote a Conservative Vision for America, Enact Positive Reforms, and Demonstrate it's the Party of Solutions",2014-10-08,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA – U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the most senior Republican in the Senate, today spoke at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, to promote meaningful policy reforms rooted in enduring constitutional principles.  Hatch outlined five key priorities where Republicans must offer solutions: health care, tax reform, regulatory relief, innovation and tech policy, and a social mobility agenda.  In his remarks, Hatch said “Now is the time for Republicans to tell America how we will right the ship, how we will solve the problems [President] Obama has wrought.  We have an opportunity to present a positive, conservative, reform-oriented agenda that will show the American people that we are the party of solutions, the party that can bring our nation out of its current malaise and restore it to growth and prestige and prosperity.” “Government’s role is not to provide universal social and economic support, but rather to create opportunities and remove obstacles.  A vigorous, dynamic constitutional conservatism will return government to its proper role—that of supporter, not director,” Hatch added.  “By keeping the Constitution as our guide and working to conserve our founding principles, we can offer a hopeful, reform-oriented agenda that will unite the conservative movement and win the hearts and minds of a broad majority of Americans looking for change.” A PDF of Hatch’s full remarks can be found here, and they are also pasted below: Introduction and Overview I’m honored to be here today.  Ronald Reagan was a great hero of mine.  His influence looms large over both our nation and my own personal political life.  In 1976 I was locked in a tight primary race in my first Senate campaign.  The polls were close, and it was anyone’s race.  A few days before the primary, Governor Reagan endorsed me.  I’m told it was his only pre-primary endorsement ever.  I’ve always been grateful for his support in that race.  In my Senate office, we have a Reagan conference room, which displays the telegram formalizing his endorsement, as well as memorabilia from several of my bills that he signed into law as President. President Reagan made tremendous contributions to American conservatism.  He implemented a conservative agenda that led to a renewal of American greatness, helped create millions of new jobs, and defeated an evil empire.  He showed that conservatism is a winning philosophy. President Reagan also recognized the signal importance of the U.S. Constitution.  Time and again he returned to the Constitution as the basis of our government and the source of our guiding principles.  He referred to the Constitution constantly in advancing his conservative agenda—an average of 16 times in each State of the Union speech.  In his First Inaugural address he made the Constitution’s opening words a key focus, emphasizing that government’s role is to serve “We the People,” and not the other way around.  He returned to this theme in his farewell address, in words worth quoting here: “Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are.  Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the People’ tell the government what it is allowed to do.  ‘We the People’ are free.” My goal today is to explain how a conservatism rooted in the Constitution’s enduring principles—what some call constitutional conservatism—provides a framework for practical solutions to many of our most pressing challenges.  I believe such an approach can serve as a foundation for successful Republican governance in the next Congress and beyond, just as it did under President Reagan. We’re at a critical point right now.  The flaws in President Obama’s agenda are increasingly clear.  The economy remains sluggish nearly six years into his presidency.  Millions of Americans are still unemployed or underemployed; millions more have given up looking for work altogether.  The President’s signature achievement, Obamacare, has caused premiums to spike and kicked millions of Americans off their health plans.  Our national debt continues to grow.  At home and abroad, our nation appears adrift.  Equally important, it feels adrift. Now is the time for Republicans to tell America how we will right the ship, how we will solve the problems Obama has wrought.  We have an opportunity to present a positive, conservative, reform-oriented agenda that will show the American people that we are the party of solutions, the party that can bring our nation out of its current malaise and restore it to growth and prestige and prosperity.  The Current Challenge Even in the face of such opportunity, this is a time of significant challenge for conservatives.  Many commentators, across the political spectrum, have identified what they describe as a Republican identity crisis.  Republican voters and elected officials, the narrative goes, are angered at the President’s overreach and opposed to his agenda, but have offered few constructive policy proposals of their own.  According to these commentators, today’s Republican party knows what it is against—the Obama agenda—but is unable to articulate what it is for. A related narrative suggests that there is an ongoing GOP civil war, a political fight, not only between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, but between competing ideologies.  Between libertarians and social conservatives, populists and elites, hawks and isolationists.  Even among those on the right who are seeking to identify an affirmative policy agenda, there is a sense that today’s GOP lacks a unified governing philosophy. Our challenge as conservatives, then, is to develop a positive, reform-minded agenda that will both unify our party and present a compelling vision to voters searching for a way out of our current problems. This is not a new challenge.  Because conservatism includes a diverse set of ideological commitments, the GOP’s successes over the last 50 years have all included a similar effort.  Beginning in the 1960s, Frank Meyer, who for many years was an editor of National Review, undertook to unite the two often disparate wings of conservatism—traditionalist and libertarian—by showing how each needs the other. Ronald Reagan was among the most ardent advocates of this view, known as fusionism.  In a 1981 address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, President Reagan lauded Meyer’s effort to “fashion[] a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought—a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.” The effort to reconcile liberty and tradition was manifest in many of President Reagan’s programs and much of his rhetoric.  He taught that it is not the state, but rather families, churches, neighborhoods, and communities that foster the virtues liberty needs to survive.  For President Reagan, liberty and tradition were not competitors, but complements.  Each needed the other to thrive.  This remains true today. Our current challenge, however, is not merely to unify.  We must also present a compelling vision.  It is not enough simply to offer a set of policy proposals.  We must root our agenda in principles, and explain to the American people why those principles—and the policies that flow from them—offer the best way forward. Constitutional Conservatism The fundamental insight of conservatism lies in the root of the word: conserve.  To be a conservative means to appreciate that our established institutions and inherited traditions reflect the accumulated wisdom of those who have come before.  American conservatism thus contains an important protective element.  It involves a commitment to conserve the principles and institutions that have made our nation so great and so free.  As conservatives, we recognize that the Constitution gave us a precious gift—a system of government that is both active and restrained.  That has the necessary authority to meet challenges, but contains within its interior structure checks on that same authority.  That gives families and communities space to thrive, but is attuned to the imperfections of human nature. Our commitment to the Constitution leads us to resist programs or ideologies that would cast aside our constitutional principles in favor of novel theories or untested designs.  In the 1950s, conservative heroes like Russell Kirk and Whitaker Chambers urged Americans to stand strong against Communism and other collectivist impulses, and to conserve our liberties by restoring traditional faith and morality.  More libertarian-minded thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman argued passionately against the New Deal as a misguided reordering of the state and federal spheres, as well as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power.  They urged a return to more limited government, and argued that reducing federal intrusion into the economy would free up space for individual liberty and innovation to flourish. Subsequent decades brought new challenges.  In the 1970s we faced out-of-control inflation, punitive tax rates, and a Soviet menace.  It took a committed conservative like Ronald Reagan to show America that we could return to greatness by returning to our founding principles of limited government, individual freedom, and strong defense. Today we face different threats, and fresh attempts to depart from our constitutional principles.  An enormous expansion of the administrative state is now invading core individual liberties.  Already the federal government has assumed authority to force Americans to purchase products they do not want; now it presumes to tell them they must violate deeply held religious beliefs.  It continues to issue regulations that stifle our economy, impede innovation, and diminish individual freedom.  As conservatives, we must continue to fight all of these attempts to expand government at the expense of our constitutional ideals.  But we must not be defined only by what we are against.  We must offer an alternative, affirmative agenda that can capture the public’s attention and demonstrate that we are the party, not of shutdowns, but solutions. As we develop this agenda, we must take care always to keep the Constitution as our guide.  By so doing, we remain true to the title conservative: we conserve our founding principles, and apply those principles to today’s challenges. Restoring Political Constitutionalism Looking to the Constitution as our guide must be an active process, and one that each of us has an independent obligation to undertake.  In particular, we cannot simply rely on courts to do the job for us.  There is an unfortunate tendency these days to think of the Constitution as the judiciary’s domain, to leave it entirely up to judges to decide whether a law is constitutional.  This tendency to leave things to the courts diminishes the other branches’ role in the constitutional system and misses the many lessons the Constitution has to teach.  The judiciary’s role in assessing constitutionality is a narrow one.  Judges ask primarily whether a law satisfies some legal rule announced in a previous case.  Is the regulated activity commerce?  Is the punishment for noncompliance a tax or a penalty? But fidelity to the Constitution is about much more than narrow legal reasoning.  Honoring the Constitution involves looking to the principles that undergird it—values like individual liberty, respect for civil society, and democratic accountability—in determining whether a given course of action is wise.  Obamacare provides a ready example.  I have said many times that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s contortions, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s powers under the Constitution.  It is not a regulation of interstate commerce, and it is not a tax. But those are not the only reasons the law is unconstitutional.  In addition to flunking formal legal tests, it violates many of the enduring principles made manifest in the Constitution.  It invades liberty by compelling individuals to purchase insurance against their will.  It undermines federalism by coercing state governments to expand Medicaid.  It dilutes the separation of powers by transferring vast legislative authority to the Executive.  And so on.  Whether or not a law meets whatever legal tests the Supreme Court has set forth does not end the inquiry for those of us who seek the Constitution as our guide.  Instead, we must practice what James Ceaser and others call political constitutionalism: the notion that it “falls mostly to political actors making political decisions to protect and promote constitutional goals.”[1] Constitutional Conservatism in Practice The Constitution has many lessons to teach about good lawmaking.  First, through its various checks and balances, it teaches that unrestrained government is a threat to liberty, and that in order to protect citizens from government’s constant tendency to expand its sphere, government must be restrained from both without and within. Second, by providing that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, the Constitution teaches that states and local communities should be equal partners with the federal government, and that most decisions affecting Americans’ lives should be made at the local level, not by some distant, national bureaucracy.  Third, the Constitution teaches that good governance consists in deliberation and considered judgment.  By dividing and separating powers among many locus points, the Constitution helps avert sudden lurches in policymaking, even as it enables more modest improvements supported by broad coalitions.  It forces rival officeholders to work together, and is designed to prevent any one person or interest from unilaterally making, changing, or eliminating laws.  Perhaps most fundamentally, the Constitution teaches the virtue of prudence.  Prudence is a habit of mind that should come naturally to conservatives.  It restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a single, abstract principle.  Rather, prudence counsels us to work within our existing circumstances to vindicate the enduring principles upon which liberty depends.  Prudent lawmakers make experience, not theory, their guide, and recognize that success requires harmonizing competing values. The Constitution is an exercise in prudence.  It contains within its structure a clash of many competing principles: the democratic, majoritarian House; the deliberative Senate; the unified and energetic Executive; the independent judiciary.  There is tension between individual rights and majority will, energy and stability, limited powers and flexibility to act.  The Constitution mediates many rival goods.  It is founded on compromise.  And it institutionalizes prudence as a signal virtue of our Republic. As constitutional conservatives, we must remain true to our ideological principles.  But we must also recognize that we operate in an imperfect world where we do not control all the levers of power.  We cannot simply charge forward hell-bent, blind to present realities.  To do so is the very antithesis of conservatism.  It would also jeopardize our hopes for success, because in the messy world of politics, adopting an all-or-nothing strategy usually produces only the latter result: nothing. Those who demand immediate, wholesale change miss this important lesson.  Our task as conservatives is to conserve, to retain what works, what is true to our constitutional structure, as we work to correct the excesses of recent decades. Constitutional Conservatism and the Senate GOP Agenda So, what is it we seek to conserve?  We seek to preserve cherished liberties that make us a free people and provide each individual with the autonomy to live a life of meaning and dignity.  We seek to safeguard free markets and entrepreneurial opportunities that produce economic growth and enable all to share in greater material prosperity.  And we seek to revitalize a civil society in which strong families, churches, and charities thrive; where neighbors look out for each other; where those with means help those in need; where individuals can reach their highest potential and communities flourish.             But in order to conserve this vision of American society, we must advance affirmative reforms.  Edmund Burke famously taught that a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.  Conservatives must offer a principled, forward-looking agenda that addresses today’s challenges in a manner that is consistent with enduring constitutional principles and that heeds the Constitution’s many lessons.  For some programs, such as Obamacare, this means repealing the program root and branch and replacing it with one that is both more effective and more in line with limited government and a free society.  For other programs that have become more embedded in the fabric of American society, advancing reforms consistent with the cause of constitutionalism will involve more incremental improvements.  Advancing our conservative vision involves limiting and restraining federal overreach that crowds out voluntary institutions and individual initiatives.  But it also requires an energetic government directed at promoting policies that enable individual opportunity and encourage civic engagement. To work towards a government of this sort, conservatives must set forth a detailed reform agenda.  Some have already begun to do so.  In the coming weeks and months, I hope to contribute to this effort.  For now, I would like to outline five policy areas that I believe should be central to the efforts of a Republican Senate majority.             Health Care Reform First is health care reform—real health care reform.  Obamacare offends core constitutional principles on multiple levels.  It restricts liberty by forcing Americans to purchase products they do not want.  It offends federalism by invading a field Congress has no authority to enter.  It undermines limited government by transferring massive power to federal policymakers.  And it undermines democratic accountability by empowering unelected bureaucrats to micromanage virtually every aspect of health care. As a consequence, we are already seeing Obamacare displace private initiative.  As Jim Capretta notes, “Instead of taking the lead to solve problems and improve care, the major players in the health system—employers, states, providers, and insurers—are now waiting for the latest pronouncements from HHS about what is and is not acceptable under Obamacare.”[2]  This is the very type of situation our Constitution was designed to avoid.  Instead of promoting innovation and community-based solutions, the federal government is crowding out private actors.  It is sapping vitality from our medical profession and quashing opportunities for growth.  It’s also massively increasing our debt, threatening to limit the prosperity and freedom of future generations. Rather than simply returning to the conditions that predated Obamacare, we need health reform that facilitates access to care and protects the most vulnerable among us, but that also eschews bureaucratic mandates and profligate spending.  We need a market-based solution that government monitors, but does not direct. Earlier this year, Senators Richard Burr, Tom Coburn, and I offered such a solution.  Our plan, the Patient CARE Act, employs market-oriented solutions to cut costs and includes patient-centered reforms to expand coverage.  It empowers states to provide coverage and reduce costs; enhances purchasing power through targeted tax credits; strengthens consumers’ ability to choose their own health plans; increases transparency regarding plan costs, quality, and outcomes; and eliminates health-care-related distortions in the tax code. Our plan achieves many of the same goals as Obamacare—such as expanding coverage and protecting access to care for individuals with preexisting conditions—while ensuring that the federal role in health care remains limited, effective, and respectful of individual consumers.  It allows providers to experiment with new types of coverage rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all formula.  It keeps costs down by expanding the health care marketplace and empowering consumers to shop around.  It incentivizes rather than forces healthy individuals to purchase insurance.  And it gives states greater flexibility in how they use Medicaid funds, in keeping with the federal nature of our constitutional system. Obamacare represents a direct assault on many of our most cherished values: individual liberty, prosperity, limited government, federalism.  Our alternative avoids all of these problems and represents a real solution to critical health care challenges. Tax Reform             A second area that demands our attention is tax reform.  Our tax code is far too long and complicated for most Americans to comprehend.  Its administration alone saps hundreds of billions of dollars each year that could instead be saved or invested.  Our current tax system undermines prosperity, discourages entrepreneurship, and gives vast authority to a largely unaccountable IRS. We must stop treating the tax code as an instrument for social engineering.  Such a strategy is flatly contrary to our constitutional values of liberty and limited government.  Instead, we should make every effort to minimize the disruptive impact of our tax burden on growth and opportunity. Several basic principles should guide our efforts.  First, reforms should encourage job creation and economic growth by making the tax code more internationally competitive, reducing distortions, eliminating overt obstacles to growth, and lowering both individual and corporate rates. Reforms should also promote simplicity and fairness.  The income tax base has become excessively riddled with exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits.  The amount a person pays in taxes should not depend on the creativity of his or her accountant. True reform must provide permanence and certainty. Temporary, expiring provisions have, over time, significantly inhibited efforts by individuals and businesses to plan responsibly for their future, and any serious solution should remedy this situation. Finally, tax reform should boost saving and investment.  Many aspects of the current code discourage these wealth-building activities.  This in turn hinders long-term growth and economic stability.  A tax environment that encourages saving and investment will help ensure an improved standard of living for future generations. All of these commonsense principles can attract broad support.  By streamlining and rationalizing our tax code, we can boost prosperity and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that has made this nation great.  Such reforms would also reign in recent IRS excesses and limit the power of unelected bureaucrats to interfere in our lives and pursuits.  By pursuing these reforms, we can make our tax code the province of the people rather than the powerful, while checking government’s continued expansion.             Regulatory Reform A third priority is regulatory reform.  The federal bureaucracy continues to grow, further inserting itself into nearly every aspect of American life.  The annual cost of regulatory compliance now approaches $2 trillion, to say nothing of the billions lost through foregone business opportunities.  Under President Obama, the growth of the regulatory state has accelerated at an unprecedented rate.  Approximately 80,000 pages of federal regulations are published each year.  And there are now more than a million individual restrictions in the Code of Federal Regulations. Congressman Paul Ryan has spoken eloquently and persuasively about overregulation’s pernicious effects, particularly on the poor.  Many federal rules disproportionately burden low-income households, which must “contribute a larger share of their income to pay for cost increases resulting from these regulations.”[3]  Similar economies of scale disproportionately burden small businesses as they struggle to keep up with the reams of red tape rolling out of Washington. The scope and power of the modern regulatory state is plainly inconsistent with constitutional limits and the type of society those limits were designed to support.  Regulation is now the primary means by which the federal government burdens our economy, encroaches on our liberties, and crowds out civil society—all without meaningful accountability to the people or their elected representatives.  Government is not supposed to be a barrier to prosperity and growth, but an enabler.  It is supposed to help lift up, not hold back. The current administrative state demands reform.  But our efforts must be prudent—carefully calibrated to deliver relief without sacrificing essential health and safety protections.             To begin with, we must ensure that all federal agencies follow existing statutes and executive orders, including the requirement to perform meaningful cost-benefit analysis to ensure that new rules do more good than harm.  Similarly, we must not allow outdated, outmoded regulations simply to pile up.  This principle—endorsed by every President since Jimmy Carter—has seen much lip service over the years but little action.  What we need now is an effective review mechanism to identify outdated regulations still on the books and provide for their revision or repeal.             We must also ensure that courts are not used to manipulate the regulatory process.  We can do this by limiting standing in citizen suits to those parties actually affected by the challenged regulation.  This will help prevent special-interest groups from using litigation to accomplish what they cannot do through the ballot box.  Finally, we should consider ways to increase judicial oversight of agency action in order to provide a more robust independent check on new regulation.  Two ways to do this would be to require agencies to satisfy a heightened standard under the Administrative Procedure Act, and to rein in the enormous deference courts currently give agency interpretations of law.             These reforms offer meaningful ways to reduce unjustified, burdensome, outdated, and duplicative regulations.  They will protect our economy, our liberty, and our right to democratically accountable government, while simultaneously ensuring legitimate standards for health and safety.  They are precisely the sort of prudent, incremental reforms that the Constitution counsels us to seek.             Innovation Agenda A fourth area of focus should be implementing an innovation agenda.  Innovation increasingly drives employment and economic growth across the nation and around the globe.  In most communities, high-tech job growth is consistently faster than in other sectors.  In fact, demand for high-tech jobs is expected to surpass demand for jobs generally through at least 2020. Our constitutional values teach that the federal government has an important role to play in helping to foster entrepreneurship and economic growth.  But that role is not one of heavy-handed regulator.  Rather, government’s proper role is to act as a facilitator, fostering an environment that encourages the research and development that will drive our prosperity and quality of life in the decades to come. Now is the time to combat abusive patent litigation and to create a harmonized, uniform system for protecting trade secrets.  Bipartisan legislation in these areas is already written and should be a top priority in the next Congress.  We should also consider ways to create a voluntary framework for combating online piracy and for protecting critical infrastructure through public-private information sharing.    Equally important is equipping our workforce for the new economy.  We can do this by investing in STEM training, and by revamping our immigration laws to ease the entry process for high-skilled workers.  Many countries, such as Canada, structure their immigration laws to favor such workers, and it is far past time we followed suit. Keeping the internet open and competitive must also be a priority.  We should encourage continued deployment of broadband networks and mobile services and ease the process of expanding wireless spectrum.  As a general matter, we must resist the urge to regulate what is working well according to market forces.  Net neutrality is a terrible idea whose time has not, and never should, come.  The last thing we need is government telling ISPs how to carve up bandwidth.  Keep the internet free and it will continue to drive our economy forward.             Fostering innovation in these ways will strengthen our economy while keeping government in its proper constitutional role—as a helpful partner, not an all-present planner.             Mobility Agenda A fifth priority should be developing and refining a mobility agenda.  For 50 years we’ve been fighting a war on poverty.  For 50 years we’ve spent trillions of dollars on massive federal welfare programs that have largely failed.  The poverty rate has remained essentially unchanged since 1967, and increasing numbers of Americans worry—with some cause—that their children won’t have the same opportunities to get ahead that they did. This is a grave problem.  Our constitutional system is predicated on the idea of a free and prosperous citizenry.  When people remain mired in poverty generation after generation, they may lose faith in the value of hard work, and turn instead to government as the answer to all their problems.  This in turn sets up a conflict between the desire for security and the ideal of limited government.  Citizens who feel abandoned or left behind may—understandably—be more willing to sacrifice some of their rights and liberties if they believe doing so will save them from economic extremity.  One of government’s legitimate obligations is to create conditions for broadly shared prosperity.  For our constitutional system to thrive, we need citizens who believe both in the government and in themselves.  Simply throwing more money at failed programs does not do this.  Nor does it foster social cooperation.  Quite the opposite.  I believe government does have an obligation to help struggling citizens, to remove obstacles and create ladders of opportunity to success.  What we need today is a concerted effort at serious reform.  Bright young leaders in our party from Congressman Ryan to Senator Marco Rubio have developed innovative proposals to expand opportunity and reinvent the safety net.  These proposals highlight the need for adaptability and accountability in our income mobility efforts.  In my home state of Utah, such an approach to HUD monies has helped more low-income families find stable housing while reducing federal handouts.  Let me offer two additional thoughts on reforms that can help keep the American Dream alive throughout society.             First, we must reform our antiquated labor laws to make hiring easier and to enable employees to change jobs more easily in the new economy.  We need standards that incorporate part-time work, flextime arrangements for working parents, and alternative methods of compensation.  Individuals should have the freedom to negotiate the terms of their work, and federal rules ought not punish law-abiding employers seeking to create win-win situations for families and productivity.  And it is past time that we reformed our labor laws to ensure that the rights of workers—not labor unions—come first.  Second, education—the gateway to opportunity in our society.  The seeds of reform—from school choice to teacher accountability—are beginning to take hold in states and localities. We must make the Department of Education a facilitator of such reform, rather than an overlord.  The federal role should be to assist state efforts through cooperative programs and increased flexibility, not top-down directives.  The Department should serve primarily as a clearinghouse for education research and as a means to disseminate best practices to states.  Experience shows that education decisions tailored to local needs are better for children than one-size-fits-all nationwide decrees. And rather than simply continuing to subsidize the ever-growing cost of higher education, we must incentivize institutions to reduce costs, which they can do by eliminating unnecessary administrative activities or implementing competency-based programs for students who already possess skills and experience in their chosen field. Summary All of these proposals aim to improve our nation’s well-being while taking account of the Constitution’s lessons.  They offer incremental reform rather than wholesale revision.  They seek to preserve the proper role of the states rather than impose top-down, conform-or-else mandates.  They recognize the threat of overbroad government power.  And they take account of current political realities. Proposals and principles like these also offer opportunities to unite the various strands of conservatism by focusing on improving economic well-being and restraining government to its proper role.  Every conservative can support efforts to get government out of health care and reduce related infringements on religious liberty.  We can all get behind efforts to reduce taxes and streamline regulations to promote real growth and opportunity.  And conservatives of all stripes can champion efforts to foster innovation and move people from poverty to opportunity in ways that do not swell our already bloated federal bureaucracy. Constitutional Conservatism and the GOP Vision for America             I am confident that such policies can win broad support.  In the coming weeks and months, I will say more about each of these principles and proposals.  But as we appeal to the American people, we must not confine ourselves to reciting a set of policy bullet points.  We must also sketch out our vision for America and show how constitutional conservatism can lead us to a richer, more robust society.  Today, as we see the federal leviathan reaching its jaws around many of our most cherished institutions, we need an invigorated conservatism that will return the federal government to its proper role in our constitutional structure.  A federal government that stops trying to eliminate all the vicissitudes of life will allow more room for family, neighbors, and churches to care for each other.  A federal government with narrower, politically accountable regulatory authority is far less likely to order individuals to violate their deeply held beliefs.  It also has less capacity to issue mandates that inhibit innovation and economic growth.  Such a government will not insinuate itself into all aspects of our lives in ways that enervate our civic institutions and undermine our ability as individuals to choose freely how to live. Constitutional conservatism is about much more than lowering taxes or eliminating waste, though reducing the size of government does both those things.  It’s about returning government to its rightful role in our society.  You may recall the Life of Julia ad from President Obama’s reelection campaign, which tells the story of a young woman who graduates college, has a child, and works until retirement, all with nary a mention of a mother, father, brother, sister, husband, or other family member.  Instead, Julia owes all her successes and opportunities in life to the federal government, which is there to support her every step along the way.  The ad is a perfect distillation of the ultimate end of the progressive state—government as replacement for family and community, God and priest, mentor and friend.  That is not the government our nation’s founders envisioned, nor the one they created. Government’s role is not to provide universal social and economic support, but rather to create opportunities and remove obstacles.  A vigorous, dynamic constitutional conservatism will return government to its proper role—that of supporter, not director.  As Ronald Reagan said in his First Inaugural, we must make government “work—work with us, not over us; . . . stand by our side, not ride on our back.  Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.” That is the vision I believe Republicans must offer.  By keeping the Constitution as our guide and working to conserve our founding principles, we can offer a hopeful, reform-oriented agenda that will unite the conservative movement and win the hearts and minds of a broad majority of Americans looking for change. Thank you.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ContentRecord_id=f8daebc0-37bf-4e2b-a439-3983251b9dd1,Senator Lee Signs Letter to Prevent Unlawful Obamacare Bailout,2014-10-08,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today I joined a group of 13 Republican senators in urging House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to protect Congress’ power of the purse and prohibit the Obama administration from dispersing unlawful risk corridor payments that expose taxpayers to an ObamaCare bailout. In a letter to Speaker Boehner, the senators expressed concern over the Administration’s intent to disregard Congressional authority by spending unappropriated and unauthorized funds through ObamaCare’s risk corridor program, and highlighted the risk the program poses to taxpayers should insurers systematically lose money on exchange plans. You can read the letter here: A Letter to Prevent an Unlawful Bailout of Health Insurance Companies",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=9ccfb912-a61e-42ed-81a6-2f456654667b,"October 8, 2014 - Mobile Office Visit to Bear River City",2014-10-07,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Mobile Office Visit to Bear River City When: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 @ 1:00-3:00 p.m. Where: Bear River City Civic Center, 5871 N 4700 W, Bear River City, UT 84301",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/statement-on-supreme-court-decision-on-gay-marriage-cases,Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage Cases,2014-10-06,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement regarding the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not review several cases involving the definition of marriage: ""I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's refusal to take up Utah's marriage appeal today. I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and believe that Utahns have the right to decide what’s best for Utah. I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has failed to provide certainty and clarity for Utahns on this issue.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=eaa4f914-9d3d-493b-a17a-c44791dc7b7d,Hatch Gives Keynote Speech on Religious Freedom at BYU Law Schools International Law and Religion Symposium,2014-10-06,2014,2014-10,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 and a lead author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), gave the keynote address at the 21st annual International Law and Religion Symposium at Brigham Young University law school Sunday night. Hatch’s speech focused on the importance of the first freedom in our nation’s history, attacks on religious liberty, and how to return our nation to one that holds sacred the freedom of religion.  Hatch also received a distinguished service award for his dedication to defending religious freedom throughout his 38 years of Senate service.   “This is an unsettled and unsettling time for religious liberty.  Both at home and abroad, religious liberty is under attack.  What was once a broad consensus here in the United States that religious freedom deserves special protection has recently crumbled,” Hatch said.  “By working to make government and religion partners once more rather than antagonists, we can revive the view that religion is a force for good rather than something to be swept under the rug.  And by ensuring that our religious heritage maintains a robust role in our educational curricula, we can ensure that our children understand that religion helped our heroes accomplish great things and made our nation what it is today.”  More information about the symposium can be found here.  Hatch’s full remarks (as prepared for delivery) are below:    It is my privilege to be with you for the 21st annual International Law and Religion Symposium.  I am humbled to be added to the list of distinguished scholars and jurists from around the world who have given this address in the past.   This is an unsettled and unsettling time for religious liberty.  Both at home and abroad, religious liberty is under attack.  What was once a broad consensus here in the United States that religious freedom deserves special protection has recently crumbled.  Indeed, President Obama and his administration have taken positions openly hostile to religious liberty.  To cite just two examples, the administration argued in the Supreme Court that the federal government may control a church’s decisions to hire or fire its own ministers.  The administration also claimed authority to force employers to violate deeply held religious beliefs in providing health benefits to employees.  At the state level, hundreds of small business owners across the country have faced fines, bankruptcy, and other sanctions under public accommodations laws for following their religious convictions.  Internationally we see many troubling attacks on religious liberty.  In Nigeria, Boko Haram continues to attack, maim, and kill Christians in its campaign of terror.  In Iran, a man was recently executed for “heresy” after he questioned the accuracy of certain religious texts.  Pakistan continues to imprison religious dissenters for blasphemy.  One such dissenter was recently killed by his jailer while awaiting trial.  The rise of ISIS and other Islamist groups in the Middle East poses a significant threat to the fragile religious freedoms in that region.  And nations from Europe to Australia are considering bans on various types of religious clothing.  I would like to take my short time with you this evening to explain why religious freedom matters, how it is under attack, and what each of us as global citizens and thought leaders can do to protect this most precious and fundamental freedom.  Why Religious Freedom Matters  First, why religious freedom matters.  Professor Thomas Berg of the University of St. Thomas writes that one of America’s greatest contributions to the world has been establishing religious freedom as both social reality and constitutional principle.  I believe this formulation is not only descriptive, but can also be prescriptive, and it will form the basis of my remarks this evening.   Religious freedom in America was social reality before it became constitutional principle.  For nearly two centuries before the founding of this Republic, one religious community after another came here to live their faith.  Puritans, Congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists all found refuge on these shores.  Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford has noted that in the years before the Revolution, America experienced a higher degree of religious diversity than existed anywhere else in the world.  Religious freedom as social reality in America has traditionally had three dimensions.  First, it has been freedom not only of belief, but also of behavior.  Second, it has been freedom that may be exercised publicly as well as privately.  And third, it has been freedom to act both individually and collectively.  This robust social reality was the backdrop for our Constitution.  America’s Founders knew that liberty necessitates limits on government, but they were divided as to what those limits should be.  Some thought that simply listing the powers of Congress in the body of the Constitution was enough, that enumeration was effectively self-limiting.  Others were more skeptical about government power and demanded affirmative protection for particular rights. The skeptics won the day, and the first right named in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religion.  Note that the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, a phrase that had been in use for more than a century before James Madison incorporated it in the First Amendment.  Not a particular exercise of religion, or the exercise of religion by a particular person, or the exercise of religion for a particular purpose.  The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion itself.   Religious freedom, then, is not simply one of many competing values, but a special and preferred value.  It is a central reason that America exists at all.  Ninety-five percent of Americans, in fact, believe that one of the principal reasons America was founded was to enable people of all faiths to believe and practice their religion.  The U.S. Supreme Court attaches the label fundamental to the most important rights.  Fundamental rights are rights that are protected from virtually any encroachment and that take precedence over other interests or values.  These rights, the Court has said, are deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition and are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty itself.  Religious freedom is one of these fundamental rights.  Religious freedom, however, is not an American invention. It is in fact the oldest internationally recognized human right, with a heritage going back at least to the Reformation.  Nor is religious freedom a uniquely American ideal.  In 1948, after the horror of World War II, numerous nations, including the United States, signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Article 18 of that Declaration states that every person has a fundamental right to freedom of religion, including “freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”  Here again we see the three dimensions of truly robust religious freedom: belief and behavior, private and public, individual and collective.  Genuine religious freedom exists when these three dimensions are both social reality and constitutional principle, and are understood as fundamental.   In 1998, Congress unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act.  I was proud to support the Act, which created an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom within the Department of State and established the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.  The Ambassador submits reports to Congress each year addressing religious freedom in other countries.  Based on these reports, the Secretary of State may designate countries that engage in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious liberty as countries of particular concern. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also submits independent annual reports that go into greater depth on selected countries that in the Commission’s independent judgment deserve greater scrutiny.  The Commission is a bipartisan, nine-member body that investigates religious freedom around the world and holds hearings to educate Congress and the public about instances of religious persecution.  The Commission’s immediate past chairman, Professor Robert George of Princeton, last year wrote about what he called religious freedom in its most robust sense.   Religious freedom is far more than a mere right to worship or to believe in private, he said, but the right to express one’s faith in public.  According to Professor George, to overcome the powerful and broad presumption in favor of religious liberty, political authority must meet a heavy burden.  The Commission’s current Chair, Katrina Lantos Swett, is equally vigorous in affirming religious freedom, and has special links to Brigham Young University because of her membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The social reality of religious freedom has an additional, more practical dimension.  America’s Founders, including George Washington, spoke about religion’s role in helping to create good citizens.  The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 similarly declared that general happiness, good order, and civil government all depend on piety, religion, and morality.  And the eminent Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in the nineteenth century, observed that Americans across all classes and parties believed that religion is indispensable to the maintenance of well-functioning political institutions.  This topic has more recently been the subject of conferences and a growing body of scholarship.  Professor Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard, for example, has argued persuasively about how violence tends to be greater in societies that suppress religious liberty and that religious freedom correlates with democratic longevity.   The last several American presidents have issued proclamations each year naming a day in January as Religious Freedom Day.  These proclamations, by presidents of both parties, have made some of the same points I have discussed tonight.  President Bill Clinton reminded us that religious freedom is a natural right and is essential to our well-being and dignity as human beings.  President George W. Bush said that religious freedom is a cornerstone of the American republic and a fundamental human right that contributes to stable democracy.   I have described the history of religious freedom in America to place in stark relief the consequences of weakening and constricting this freedom.  A few blocks from the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. is the National Archives, which houses the most important documents from America’s Founding.  Reaching the main entrance requires walking past a statute on which is inscribed the axiom “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”  That vigilance is necessary to ensure that religious liberty remains both social reality and meaningful constitutional principle. How Religious Freedom Is Under Attack  Unfortunately, both dimensions of religious freedom in America are eroding.  In terms of social reality, while nearly 90 percent of Americans say that religion is important in their personal lives, three-quarters believe religion is losing its influence in our society, the highest level in nearly 60 years.   In several ways, pressure is mounting to deprive religious freedom of its foundational status in the cultural and political life of our nation.  For example, arguments have been made in both the political arena and in America’s courts that laws should not — and even may not — be based on religious considerations.   Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS Church addressed this notion several months ago at Utah Valley University’s Constitutional Symposium on Religious Freedom.  The argument against basing laws on religious considerations goes like this: because religion is a private rather than a public matter — or so the argument claims — the only legitimate basis for public debate and political decision-making is so-called public reasons, which are defined to exclude religious values and expression.  This view attacks all three of the dimensions of religious freedom that I described earlier.  It insists that religion is limited to belief, not behavior; that religious exercise is individual, not collective; and, especially, that religion is something that should be conducted in private, not in public.    Religious freedom as constitutional principle is also under attack, in at least two ways.  The first is through a general decline in American citizens’ knowledge about our Constitution, our history and heritage, and our form of government.  James Madison, a principal author of the Constitution, wrote that only a well-instructed people can permanently remain a free people.  Citizens cannot understand, let alone defend, what they do not know.  Yet today, poll after poll shows that Americans are shockingly ignorant of even the most basic matters relating to their nation and their liberty.  Author James Bovard aptly calls this attention deficit democracy.  This general decline in Americans’ knowledge about government sets the stage for the second way in which religious freedom as a constitutional principle is threatened.  For 150 years after America’s Founding, a consensus existed that judges have only a modest role in interpreting our written Constitution.  Because the Constitution expresses the people’s will about government power and individual rights, that consensus maintained, only the people have authority to change the Constitution.  But ignorance about American history, our political system, and the requirements of liberty has allowed a radical transformation in the courts.  Since the 1930s, presidents have increasingly appointed judges willing to impose their own meaning on the Constitution rather than draw the people’s meaning from it.  I mention this because the personal values and preferences these activist judges have imposed have been uniformly hostile to religion and religious freedom.  The First Amendment prohibits federal establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion.  America’s Founders viewed the Establishment Clause narrowly and the Free Exercise Clause broadly, a combination that allowed for robust religious freedom and an active role for religion in public life.  Judges who have felt free to impose their own values, however, have consistently reversed that order, interpreting the Establishment Clause broadly and the Free Exercise Clause narrowly.  The result has been a continued diminishing of religious freedom and an increasingly muted role for religion in public life.  In a case titled Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court in 1992 held that an invocation before a public school graduation ceremony was an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment.  Such invocations had been common throughout our history and are still practiced in legislatures across America, including in the U.S. Senate, where I serve.  The argument seemed to be, at least in the public school context, that the mere uttering of religious words in the form of a prayer was an unconstitutional establishment of religion.   While the Weisman decision broadened the meaning of the Establishment Clause, a decision two years earlier narrowed the Free Exercise Clause.  The Supreme Court had for decades held that government action burdening religious exercise must meet a legal standard called strict scrutiny that requires a compelling justification for the government’s action.  Applying this standard identifies the free exercise of religion as a fundamental value while also allowing for some restrictions under narrow circumstances.   An Oregon state law prohibited the use of controlled substances, including the drug peyote.  Two Native American state employees were fired for using peyote in their religious ceremonies and argued that this violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion.  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, rejecting the view that there must be religious exemptions for laws such as Oregon’s controlled substance ban.  Instead, it held that any neutral law of general applicability could override religious freedom claims, and that the strict scrutiny standard would apply only when government explicitly targets religion, and in certain other narrowly defined contexts.  This decision, titled Employment Division v. Smith, was deeply troubling.  By significantly narrowing the circumstances in which religious exercise would be protected as a fundamental value subject to strict scrutiny, the Court significantly broadened the circumstances in which it would be subject to all sorts of government controls.  In one fell swoop, the Court reversed decades of precedent, disregarded centuries of practice, and threatened to upend religious liberty’s status as a preferred value in American society.    I knew that I had to do everything in my power as a United States Senator to limit Smith’s effect.  And so I led a campaign to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision and restore heightened protection for religious liberty.  The culmination of these efforts was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which I sponsored in the United States Senate.  RFRA was the rare bill that attracted broad, indeed nearly unanimous, bipartisan support.   RFRA’s purpose was to reinstate the broad protection religious liberty enjoyed prior to Smith.  It said, simply and plainly, that “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”  This means government cannot pass laws or take action that substantially impedes a person’s practice of religion, even when the law is targeted to some other, nonreligious purpose and affects everyone — religious and nonreligious — equally.  Nor is there any limit on subject matter.  All government action that substantially burdens religious liberty is prohibited, regardless of whether it involves the environment, education, transportation, or health care.  RFRA also contains an exception: Government can substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, but only if two conditions are both met.  First, the government measure must advance a compelling government interest.  Second, it must be the least restrictive means of advancing that interest.   This is the so-called strict scrutiny test that applied before the Smith decision.  In order to intrude on religious liberty, government must have a very good reason for doing so, and the intrusion must be necessary to accomplish that goal.  If there is an alternative way to accomplish the same result that does not intrude on religious liberty, the government must take it.  Put differently, government may intrude on religious liberty only when it has no other choice.  This restores religious freedom to its proper place in the pantheon of values.  Other values and interests take a back seat where religious rights are involved.  As you can see, RFRA is an incredibly expansive statute.  It applies to all government action, and requires government to satisfy strict conditions before it can intrude on religious liberty.  Equally broad was the coalition that passed RFRA.  The bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously.  Think about that — unanimously.  There was not a single dissenting vote.  Even the vote to authorize the use of military force against al-Qaeda following 9/11 was not unanimous.  RFRA passed the Senate 97 to 3.  Nearly unanimous.  The day President Clinton signed RFRA into law was one of the proudest days of my life.  RFRA has not had an uncomplicated history in the courts.  In 1997, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked constitutional authority to impose a stricter standard of religious freedom protection on the states than the Supreme Court had decreed in Smith.  Intervening cases have confirmed that RFRA does restore the compelling interest test where federal legislation is involved.  Significantly, nineteen states have adopted state religious freedom restoration acts, and courts in another twelve states have accomplished the same result by construing their state constitutions to require heightened scrutiny of religious freedom claims.  Only four states have explicitly followed the reasoning of the Smith decision.  Thus, while the Supreme Court narrowed the state protections provided by RFRA, the majority of states have followed the lead established by Congress in passing RFRA.  RFRA was a broad law supported by a broad coalition that recognized the law’s expansive scope.  When President Clinton signed it into law twenty years ago, there was widespread agreement as to religious liberty’s fundamental status, and the fact that government should have to exhaust all other possible avenues before intruding on religious rights.  But unfortunately, times have changed.  Where once there was broad agreement, now there is discord.   Earlier this year, in a case titled Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court held that Obamacare’s birth control mandate did not sufficiently accommodate the free exercise of religion.  The plaintiffs in the case argued that providing certain mandated birth control products would violate their deeply held religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of life.  In ruling for the plaintiffs, the Court found that there were available alternative means of accomplishing the policy objective of providing insurance coverage for birth control that would not force the plaintiffs to violate their sincere, deeply held religious beliefs.   Set against the broad backdrop of American history, of religious freedom as both social reality and constitutional principle, the Court’s decision was not remarkable at all.  But throughout American society, the longstanding consensus about religious freedom has deteriorated, and the Court’s decision has proven controversial.  As with Smith, members of Congress responded to the Hobby Lobby decision with legislation to overturn it.  But there was a key difference between the decisions: Smith diminished religious freedom, whereas Hobby Lobby secured it.  Think about that.  In 1993, Congress responded to the Smith decision that had weakened religious freedom with legislation to protect it.  In 2014, however, a mere two decades later, many members of Congress — including many who had voted for RFRA — responded to the Hobby Lobby decision that had protected religious freedom with legislation to weaken it.   Nor are these attempts to diminish religious liberty in the wake of Hobby Lobby limited to the specific facts of that case.  Hobby Lobby dealt with Obamacare’s birth control mandate.  The proposed legislative responses to Hobby Lobby, however, sweep much more broadly.  They would exempt from RFRA’s strict scrutiny requirement not just birth control coverage, but all federal laws and regulations relating to health care.  Just as Smith provoked a broad legislative response, so did Hobby Lobby.  The difference is that in 1993 there was near-unanimity that religious liberty deserves the highest protection, whereas now, a significant portion of Congress believes religious liberty deserves no particular protection, at least where health care is involved.  I have served in the U.S. Senate for nearly 38 years, and have been involved in developing, negotiating, drafting, and enacting thousands of bills.  Rarely have I seen a bill that was clearer or simpler than the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  In 1993, Congress was nearly unanimous that the free exercise of religion was to continue its preferred place in our hierarchy of values.  Just 20 years later, many of the very Senators and Congressmen who supported RFRA are now pushing legislation that would render it impotent.  Another way in which religious freedom is being pulled down from its preferred status is by placing it in conflict with other rights, including statutory rights.  This situation occurs, for example, when the constitutional right to the free exercise of one’s religion is said to conflict with a statutory right to be free from discrimination.   The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in 2012 in a case called Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC.  In Hosanna-Tabor, a religious denomination argued that its First Amendment right to determine who would serve as its ministers created an exception to a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination.   Ordinarily, the proposition that statutes must conform to the Constitution is accepted as an obvious principle.  A conflict between the two typically comes before the courts when a party alleges that a statute violates the Constitution.  This case, however, came to the Supreme Court in the opposite posture.  The plaintiff employee argued, in effect, that the Constitution violated the statute.  The Supreme Court, thankfully, rejected this twisted view, and instead vindicated the First Amendment right of churches to choose their ministers free from governmental interference.  Notwithstanding this clear judicial victory, however, the case revealed something very disturbing — even offensive — about the Obama administration’s view of religious freedom. The administration argued that there was no need for a special religious exception to federal discrimination law, because all groups— religious and secular — already enjoy some level of protection under the First Amendment freedom of association.  As the Court explained in rejecting this “remarkable” proposition, the administration wrongly believed that, “the First Amendment analysis should be the same, whether the association in question is the Lutheran Church, a labor union, or a social club.”  Let that sink in for a moment.  The President of the United States was arguing that a church’s right to select its leader free from governmental interference was no different from that of a scout troop, a local Kiwanis club, or an intramural sports team.  The administration, in effect, was asking the Court to read the Free Exercise Clause right out of the First Amendment and hold that a church is no different from any other group in terms of its relation to government.  Churches, in the administration’s view, are just another social group.   Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected this position unanimously, noting that “the text of the First Amendment itself . . . gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”  You would think this point would have been obvious to the President and his lawyers.   Do not think, however, that the Obama administration has consistently argued that statutes trump the Constitution.  Just last year, for example, the Obama administration argued to the Supreme Court that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Fifth Amendment’s implicit guarantee of equal protection.   Lay aside for the moment the remarkable fact that the Obama administration chose not to defend a duly enacted federal law. Focus instead on this fact: It became the official position of the United States that, on the one hand, an implicit constitutional right trumps a federal statute recognizing the millennia-old, religiously rooted, traditional definition of marriage, while on the other hand, an explicit constitutional right to religious freedom fails against a federal anti-discrimination statute.  It would be difficult to imagine a more direct attack on the fundamental status of religious liberty.  The alleged conflict between religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws represents another area where the former consensus favoring religious liberty has fallen apart.  Last year I was proud to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation.  The bill, which contained a robust exemption for religious organizations, struck the right balance between religious liberty and a competing right.  It advanced the cause of equality by prohibiting workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians, but also protected the rights of religious organizations.  In this way, it maintained religious liberty as a preferred right.  Many LGBT advocacy groups, however, have since withdrawn their support for ENDA expressly because of its religious exemption.  In their view, religious groups should be treated just like any other groups, and the principle of equality should trump the right to religious liberty.  Far from giving religious freedom preferred status, these groups would subsume it beneath other values.  We are seeing the same dynamic play out across the country as LGBT and other advocacy groups are increasingly opposed to religious exemptions that even a few years ago would have passed without conflict.  I am deeply concerned by this dynamic.  From my perspective, it appears that now these groups believe they are “winning” the argument and therefore have no need for religious accommodations.  Whereas in the past they were willing to respect religious freedom, now that they believe they have the upper hand they are ready to disregard religious liberty altogether.   The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term tomorrow, the first Monday in October.  On Tuesday, the Court will consider a case presenting once again the question whether religious freedom remains a preferred value in American law and culture.  In 2000, I introduced — and Congress unanimously passed —the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  This law applies the same protective standard found in RFRA to the contexts of incarceration and local zoning practices.  In the case to be argued this week, a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas was denied permission to grow a half-inch beard that his faith requires, even though the state allows prisoners to grow beards for medical reasons.  As I described earlier, neither the First Amendment nor the statute makes religious exercise an absolute value.  But it is a preferred value.  This case is important because it measures whether a particular policy is the least restrictive means available, or whether a particular purpose is compelling.  For that reason, the Court’s decision may signal whether religious freedom remains fundamental.  Preserving and Protecting Religious Freedom  Tonight I have painted what seems like a negative picture.  Religious freedom in three-fold dimension is being eroded and weakened as both social reality and constitutional principle.  It is increasingly viewed not as a fundamental right, or even as a preferred value, but at best as one of many competing interests, and at worst as something that should be kept out of the public square altogether.  This trend not only restricts religious liberty, but also limits the impact faith has on society.  I said at the outset that Professor Berg’s formulation of religious liberty as social reality and constitutional principle can be both descriptive and prescriptive, and I turn now to the latter as I conclude my remarks.  The solution to the problems I have identified is to strengthen religious freedom as both social reality and constitutional principle.  That may sound simplistic, but it is hardly simple.  As we have seen, it is taking mere years to undermine and possibly destroy what took centuries to build.   I agree with Professor Glendon of Harvard, who argues that whether religious freedom in the future will be a fundamental right is primarily a cultural challenge.  Professor Glendon gave the 2011 Harold J. Berman Lecture at Emory University, and I commend it for your consideration.  In her lecture, Professor Glendon endorsed legal and political efforts to defend religious liberty, but also said that in the end, success “will depend even more on the attitudes and actions of religious believers and leaders themselves.”  I think Professor Glendon is exactly right, and I am deeply dismayed at the way contemporary society has come to treat religion.   Much of this can be laid at the feet of media.  So much of what we see or hear in movies, on the radio, and particularly on television seems to scorn or degrade religion.  Churches and charities are depicted as corrupt and self-indulgent.  Late-night comics treat believers as buffoons.  Reporters fawn over atheists and agnostics who purport to “speak truth to power” by belittling our religious heritage even as they enjoy more media coverage and a more lavish lifestyle than any parish priest could ever hope.  When did religion become such a negative thing?  How many movies must we endure where the villain is a priest, a pastor, or a self-righteous zealot?  One might be excused for thinking that, based on representations in popular media, religious organizations are forces for evil rather than the backbone of much that is good and generous in our society.  Nevertheless, we cannot lay all the blame at the feet of the media.  To do so would be to pretend that we — academics, government leaders, journalists — are powerless.  But we are not.  Even if we cannot control what media elites disseminate, we can work within our own spheres of influence to remind our fellow citizens of our shared religious heritage and the tremendous good religion has accomplished in our society. First, we must be resolute against efforts to remove our religious heritage from educational curricula.  I do not mean here to get into the debate about whether the United States is a “Christian nation,” or similar controversies.  Rather, I mean to suggest that we should be honest with our children about the profound — and profoundly positive — impact that religion had on some of our greatest leaders.  It is fashionable to question the Christianity of George Washington, and volumes have been written on Thomas Jefferson’s heterodoxy, but the fact remains that nearly all of our greatest leaders, from Washington to Lincoln to Martin Luther King, were men of faith who found deep strength in their religious convictions.  Our heroes were religious men.  To teach this is not to “inject” religion into a place it does not belong.  It is simply to state the truth.  Remember, too, that many of our greatest social movements, from abolition to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, were led by religious individuals motivated by religious conviction.  Second, we must reclaim the public square as a forum friendly for religion.  Nearly seventy years ago the Supreme Court committed legal and historical malpractice by importing into its early Establishment Clause jurisprudence the false notion that our Founders intended to wall off religion from the public square.  Myriad historians have since proved the Court’s error, but the idea it planted has flourished into the widespread belief that religion has no place in school, in government, or anywhere else in the public sphere.  This is simply wrong.  There should be room in all aspects of the public square for affirmations of religious devotion and recognition of the important role religion continues to play.  This does not mean we should mandate school prayer.  But it does mean we should allow students and government leaders to express religious views without condemnation and without criticism that religion is a purely private affair.  I am deeply concerned by the movement to cut off school funding for religious groups that require leaders to affirm the groups’ religious beliefs.  We should encourage, not hamstring, students’ efforts to join together with co-believers.  I am particularly concerned that some schools are eliminating funding for religious groups even while leaving funding for secular groups untouched.  And I call on state officials to ensure that such schools are not using nondiscrimination codes as a fig leaf for getting rid of disfavored religious groups.  Third, we must support efforts to partner government with religious and charitable organizations to reach underserved populations.  I believe that one of President George W. Bush’s most important, and least heralded, initiatives was his effort to tap into the faith community’s ability to provide services to poor and underprivileged communities.  President Bush recognized the tremendous work that religious groups do to care for and support the needy.  He also recognized that faith-based organizations can often provide services more efficiently and effectively than government. These efforts show that government and religion are not antagonists, but partners.  Fourth, we should highlight the good that religious leaders do for our nation.  We are bombarded constantly with negative news about religious leaders.  Pastors embezzling from their congregations, ministers cheating on their wives, priests abusing young worshippers.  To be sure, there are bad apples in religious groups as there are everywhere. But the few bad apples do not spoil the whole barrel.  Wouldn’t it be nice, for a change, if among all the unrelenting negativity there were some positive stories about lives changed for the better?  There are awards, degrees, honoraria, prizes to be given.  Commissions, boards, panels to be filled.  Books, papers, studies to be written.  Perhaps we could give greater thought to religious leaders in our communities that are deserving of such awards, or available to serve on such commissions, where their service can be recognized.  Professional athletes and boorish musicians receive enough attention.  Let’s try to reserve some for our upstanding religious leaders.  Fifth, we should work harder to convince people that religious freedom is worth protecting, a point made by Professor Christopher Lund at Wayne State University.  For much of American history, we either assumed the answer or did not ask the question at all.  But the heritage that began with social reality and became constitutional principle will not protect itself.  Professor Lund writes that unless we do better at explicitly making this case, legislators will no longer enact laws such as RFRA, judges will not properly interpret constitutional provisions and statutes protecting religious freedom, and religious liberty will indeed no longer receive the standing it deserves.  Sixth, we must affirm our own individual faith and devotion.  As community leaders, we have the ability to reach and influence broad audiences.  By publicly affirming our faith, we both show that faith does have a place in the public sphere, and show community members that their leaders place a priority on religion.  This does not mean we should become public pastors.  But it does mean we should not be shy about our own beliefs.  By demonstrating that religion is important to our own self-identity and desire to serve, we show our community members that religion is a thing of value and source of motivation.  And who knows?  Showing others how religion has changed our lives may spark a desire in them to seek greater devotion in their own lives.  There can be no greater protector of religious liberty than a society composed of individuals who actually value religion.  Changing culture is no easy thing, and we here in this room are too small a group to redirect a trajectory that has gone so far off course.  But we are not the only people dedicated to religious liberty, and concerned that it is retreating both here in the United States and across the world.  The Pew Forum reports that three-quarters of the world’s population live in countries with high government restrictions and significant social hostilities surrounding religion, and that level is increasing.  In many places, religious freedom has never been social reality or constitutional principle.   Many of our neighbors and fellow community leaders share our concerns about religious liberty’s retreat.  By reasserting religious freedom’s proper place we can appeal to those who recognize the importance of religious liberty but are unsure how to proceed.  By making the public square more friendly for religion we can invite back into the square those who share our convictions but feel uncomfortable expressing those convictions in public.   By working to make government and religion partners once more rather than antagonists, we can revive the view that religion is a force for good rather than something to be swept under the rug.  And by ensuring that our religious heritage maintains a robust role in our educational curricula, we can ensure that our children understand that religion helped our heroes accomplish great things and made our nation what it is today.  Religion may never be fashionable in the way it once was.  Our insular and insulated media elites will work to that end.  But if we can help our young people see religion as a force for good, they will be more inclined to protect it and to stand up against secularists who seek to rid religion from our history books and banish it from our public discourse.  A 2011 survey revealed that 90 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom is an inherent right that is not granted by government.  That is perhaps a slim reed, but it is an essential belief for rebuilding the foundation of religious freedom.  The preamble to our Constitution states that that charter was established to secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  True religious freedom is essential for that security.  I wish each of you God’s blessing in seeking to advance the cause of religious liberty, here in the United States and throughout the world.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=232898e7-6597-4373-b3a4-abc153095782,Lee Responds to Court Decision on Gay Marriage Cases,2014-10-06,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee responded to the decision by the Supreme Court to not review several cases involving a state’s right to define marriage: “The Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert is disappointing.  Nothing in the Constitution forbids a state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Whether to change that definition is a decision best left to the people of each state — not to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=232898e7-6597-4373-b3a4-abc153095782,Lee Responds to Court Decision on Gay Marriage Cases,2014-10-06,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senator Mike Lee responded to the decision by the Supreme Court to not review several cases involving a states right to define marriage:The Supreme Courts decision to not review the Tenth Circuits ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert is disappointing. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Whether to change that definition is a decision best left to the people of each state not to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://web.archive.org/web/20141009235502/http://robbishop.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397659,IN THE NEWS: (BLOOMBERG) Utah Representative Likely Has Clear Path To Chair House Natural Resources Panel,2014-10-03,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,web.archive.org,,,legacy,"By Anthony Adragna  — Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) appears to have a clear path to chair the House Natural Resources Committee to succeed retiring chairman Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) after the only Republican in Bishop's path told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 2 that he wouldn't run. “[Bishop] is actively working toward that goal and is hopeful that he will be selected as the next chairman,” Melissa Subbotin, an aide to Bishop, told Bloomberg BNA. “Despite there being significant support behind his bid for chairman, he takes nothing for granted.” Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) have greater seniority on the committee than Bishop. But Young can't run due to House Republican term limits and Gohmert—Bishop's only obstacle to the chairmanship—told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail he wouldn't challenge Bishop for the chairmanship. For Bishop to lose, he would have to be upset by a less-senior committee member. “Rob and I have been of a common spirit on most every issue,” Gohmert said of Bishop. “I can think of no one who would do a better job of leading that critical committee at this crucial time than [Bishop]. He would be a great chairman and I fully support his chairmanship—as long as my support does not hurt him.” Said ‘Dedicated’ to Natural Resources. Subbotin, Bishop's aide, described the Utah congressman as one of the “most dedicated” members of Congress on natural resources issues and said he has worked hard to educate both Democrats and Republicans about these issues. Bishop currently chairs the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee within the broader committee. Todd Willens, chief of staff to Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) who chairs the Congressional Western Caucus, said his boss fully supports Bishop's candidacy and expected the caucus would as well, but it had not yet meet to discuss it. First elected to the House in 2003, Bishop represents the first district of Utah. He won re-election with 71.5 percent of the vote in 2012. According to his website, Bishop strongly supports greater development of domestic energy sources to reduce American reliance on foreign energy sources. He supports regulations that “strike a balance for wise management of our public lands and resources.” Young Won't Run. An aide to Young confirmed he wouldn't seek the post because House Republican rules prohibit him from doing so. He chaired the committee from 1995 through 2001. The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee will first have to clear the Republican Party Steering Committee, an arm of the House Republican leadership. That selection is then voted on by the full Republican conference. Young is prohibited from continuing as chairman under Rule 14(e) of the House Republican conference, which prohibits members from serving more than three terms as chairman or a ranking member on a committee. Young has backed Bishop to become chairman of the committee. Hastings, who has chaired the committee since 2011, announced in February he planned to retire from Congress at the end of his current term. He hasn't said whom he would prefer to succeed him. With assistance from Dean Scott in Washington",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1593875b-bff9-4387-8cf9-c6577371e181,"Fact Sheet: Obama Economy Boosts Wall Street, Not Main Street",2014-10-02,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Since the President took office in January 2009, middle-class Americans have been saddled with slow economic growth, weak job markets, and smaller paychecks.  Following is an analysis, prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff, on the Obama economy:  WEAK JOB MARKETS: When President Obama came into office, the national unemployment rate was 7.8 percent and rose to as high as 10 percent in October 2009. Today it is 6.1 percent, however: The number of people who are not in the labor force has grown, despite a growing working-age population, by 11.7 million.  The number of people who are not in the labor force who want a job has grown by nearly 600,000 during the Obama Administration.  Many simply gave up on trying to find a job in the Obama economy.  The employment-to-population ratio has remained consistently below 60 percent during Obama’s tenure and has barely budged; in contrast, the ratio averaged 62.9 percent between the beginning of the year 2000 through when Obama assumed office. The labor force participation rate has continued to trend downward during Obama’s tenure, from 65.7 percent when he took office to its current low of 62.8 percent. Payroll job growth has been tepid over Obama’s tenure: it has averaged only 132,000 per month since the end of the recession.  While over 7.4 million payroll jobs were lost during the recession, there has only been a net 4.3 million jobs created over Obama’s tenure. SMALLER PAYCHECKS: Middle-class Americans’ take home pay has shrunk under the Obama Administration’s economic agenda: Earnings have barely budged during President Obama’s tenure. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, were $10.38 when the president took office; nearly six years later and a full five years and two months after the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the recession ended (June 2009), average hourly earnings were down to $10.33.  Inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen during President Obama’s tenure from $54,423 in 2008, the year before the president took office, to only $51,939 in 2013 (the last year of data availability), putting a squeeze on middle-class American families. Inflation-adjusted per capita income has fallen from $29,173 in 2008 to $28,829 in 2013. The number of people in poverty has risen over President Obama’s tenure. As a percent of the total population, 13.2 percent of Americans were in poverty in 2008, before the President took office. In 2013, 14.5 percent of Americans were in poverty. SLUGGISH ECONOMIC GROWTH: The tax-and-spend agenda of the Obama Administration has led to record high debt and anemic economic growth: Annualized growth in the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) has averaged a meager 1.7 percent over President Obama’s tenure (and averaged a tepid 2.2 percent since the end of the recession), in contrast to the long-run (1948 Q1-2014 Q2) average of 3.3 percent. The Obama-era deficits have been as high as 10.2 percent of the size of the entire economy—deficit levels not seen since the years surrounding World War II. The federal budget deficit ballooned to $1.47 trillion in fiscal year (FY) 2009, fueled by the failed $800 billion-plus stimulus law that ended up costing American taxpayers close to $1 trillion, without any meaningful return to Americans in terms of improved economic outcomes.  Despite claims that budget austerity and the slashing of spending were the drivers of deficit reduction, the deficit reduction that has occurred since the outsized deficit in 2009 is entirely accounted for by higher federal revenues; not by spending reductions. Since the high-water mark of deficits in FY 2009, deficits have fallen.  In August of FY 2014 the fiscal-year-to-date deficit was $590 billion, a $670 billion decline in the deficit of $1,260 deficit at the same time in FY 2010.  Yet the deficit reduction was more than accounted for by higher federal revenue—up $747 billion for the fiscal-year-to-date in 2014 through August relative to the same period in 2010.  Despite continuous claims of budget austerity and spending cuts, federal outlays were also up—by $76 billion for the fiscal year-to-date in 2014 through August relative to the same period in 2010.  For the fiscal-year-to-date in August of 2014 relative to the same period in 2010, increased federal receipts more than account for (111 percent) of the deficit reduction of $670 billion that occurred; increased federal outlays account added nothing and, in fact, detracted from deficit reduction. Gross federal debt outstanding has risen by an unprecedented $7.2 trillion since President Obama took office, and currently stands at $17.8 trillion, which is over 111 percent of the size of the entire United States economy.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5123c562-cf6d-4c9b-82ac-9caa4c14b60e,Hatch on Presidents Speech on the American Economy,2014-10-02,2014,2014-10,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, issued the following statement after President Obama delivered remarks today on the economy:  “Over the past six years hard-working, middle-class families have been squeezed by the President’s failed economic policies. Bigger government, higher taxes, more spending, and rising debt have left Americans in the lurch, facing sluggish economic growth, smaller paychecks, and a weak job market. That’s no cause for celebration. Rather than boasting about economic policies that have done little for those on Main Street, as the President did today, this Administration ought to work with Congress to advance pro-growth, job-creating initiatives like the Keystone XL pipeline and Trade Promotion Authority. Sadly, recycled half-decade-old campaign rhetoric is all this White House has been able to produce.”  NOTE: Since the President took office in January 2009, middle-class Americans have been saddled with slow economic growth, weak job markets, and smaller paychecks. To view an analysis on the current state of the economy under President Obama click HERE.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=41820cc4-e8b7-48af-9138-3a4c922c1674,Lee Responds to Chairman Priebus Remarks on a GOP Agenda,2014-10-02,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Following Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ speech at George Washington University entitled “Principles for an American Renewal,” Senator Mike Lee released the following response: LEE: “Chairman Priebus has laid out the case for how Republicans should succeed this fall.  We have a broad agenda to address Americans’ economic and national security concerns, while the Democrats are forced to run on their failed record of Obamacare, unemployment, and debt.  The choice couldn’t be more clear and it’s up to the American people to decide the course we take. “Chairman Priebus succinctly expressed Republican core principles and values, and presented numerous examples of solutions Republicans have produced by applying those principles to the challenges facing working families today.  We have proposals to increase economic security among the middle class, improve mobility for working-class families, and ensure the system is no longer rigged for those at the top. “It is an ambitious vision for the future of our country and demonstrates the kind of leadership Americans are desperate for.  I am encouraged that the GOP is the party of ideas once again.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=41820cc4-e8b7-48af-9138-3a4c922c1674,Lee Responds to Chairman Priebus Remarks on a GOP Agenda,2014-10-02,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Following Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus speech at George Washington University entitled Principles for an American Renewal, Senator Mike Lee released the following response: LEE: Chairman Priebus has laid out the case for how Republicans should succeed this fall. We have a broad agenda to address Americans economic and national security concerns, while the Democrats are forced to run on their failed record of Obamacare, unemployment, and debt. The choice couldnt be more clear and its up to the American people to decide the course we take. Chairman Priebus succinctly expressed Republican core principles and values, and presented numerous examples of solutions Republicans have produced by applying those principles to the challenges facing working families today. We have proposals to increase economic security among the middle class, improve mobility for working-class families, and ensure the system is no longer rigged for those at the top. It is an ambitious vision for the future of our country and demonstrates the kind of leadership Americans are desperate for. I am encouraged that the GOP is the party of ideas once again.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=c66e8e74-ed72-467c-8602-52a1ef1be272,Bring Them In - Remarks to the Sutherland Institute's Center for Utah's Economy,2014-10-02,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Thank you to the Sutherland Institute for hosting this event. I am grateful for all you do to stand firmly and faithfully on the front lines of the fight for human dignity, economic opportunity, and social solidarity. 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 can still be hard to accept that fact in a nation with a $15 trillion economy. And yet, more than 50 years after 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 across the country has hardly budged. And nearly every strategy we have employed in this “war” – dealing with everything from health care to criminal justice – has failed to achieve genuine change in our most vulnerable communities. In that same time, participation in civil society, marriage, and religion have deteriorated in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that 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 conservatives summon 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 affirmed the equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For more than two hundred years, the United States –through good times and bad – has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of the world. From our very Founding, 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 – 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. In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause, your success depends on your service. For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation. Together, America’s free-enterprise economy and voluntary civil society enabled millions of ordinary Americans to protect themselves – and each other – from material want and social isolation … long before Lyndon Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government authority. Defenders of today’s status quo say that any critique of our welfare system is really just a thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the social safety net. But what we all should want – and what I certainly do want – is not to destroy the safety net, but to make it work. This is an important point for us 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, for most people, not 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 however unintended, too many government programs today only exacerbate that isolation. Networks of opportunity formed within the free market and civil society are not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are blessings that poor families need more access to. 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 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. Likewise, poor children today possess the ability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. But what they lack is 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 us 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 - by offering not simply criticisms, but alternatives. Today, too many of those “artificial weights” Lincoln described are themselves government policies. Our federal government has become overwhelmed with outdated institutions and dysfunctional policies making it harder for Americans on the margins to build a good life for themselves and their families. Our education policies trap poor kids in failing schools, and our broken tax code treats marriage and work as costly burdens rather than essential pathways to personal happiness and prosperity. Meanwhile, we have a health care system that confines the most vulnerable among us to the lowest quality care and criminal justice laws that tear apart families and fracture communities. A truly comprehensive anti-poverty agenda must address these poverty traps wherever they exist. To make poverty temporary, rather than simply tolerable, such an agenda must not only correct – but transcend – existing policies. Forging an agenda of practical and effective anti-poverty reforms will require creative thinking, bold leadership, and hard work – inside and outside government. That’s why I’m so grateful the Sutherland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, with Arthur Brooks at the helm, are leading this effort. These are two of the most trusted, innovative, and influential research institutions in the country, thanks largely to their work developing a conservative “social justice agenda.” For both institutions, it’s not just an “anti-poverty” agenda that we need – it’s a “pro-happiness” agenda. They recognize that people living in poverty aren’t data points or statistics – they’re human beings who, like all of us here, want to lead prosperous and satisfying lives. And while happiness may not mean the same thing for everyone, it always involves some combination of what Arthur calls “institutions of meaning,” which exist in the vital human space between the isolated individual and the oppressive state: faith, family, community, and work. This is a critical point to remember in our fight against poverty: some of our most important investments will be not in economic capital, but in human and social capital. This begins, of course, with everyone’s primary source of human and social capital: the family. People of good will can disagree about whether government policy should privilege families, in recognition of their unique role in the pursuit of happiness and justice. But I think everyone should be able to at least agree that government should not unfairly penalize families. That’s why I’ve introduced a pro-family, pro-growth tax reform plan designed not just to grow the economy, but to increase freedom and opportunity for America’s low-income earners and working families. I’m working on a new version of the plan now with my friend, Senator Marco Rubio. Alleviating the economic burdens of building a family isn’t – or at least shouldn’t be – a political issue. That’s because poverty shouldn’t be a political issue… it’s a human issue that each of us, regardless of party affiliation, has a moral obligation to address. The Sutherland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute understand this, and believe it or not, even some of my colleagues in Congress are starting to catch on. For instance, one of my favorite bills in Congress right now is the Smarter Sentencing Act, which I’m co-sponsoring with two of the most liberal Senators in the country, Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois and Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. The three of us don’t always agree on everything, but we came together in the Judiciary Committee to introduce this bill, which would modernize our drug sentencing polices by giving federal judges more discretion in sentencing those convicted of non-violent offenses. The idea behind the bill is simple: for those in our prison system who are not violent and pose no threat to our communities, we have a moral obligation to get them re-integrated into our nation’s networks of social and economic mobility. Legislative proposals like the Smarter Sentencing Act aren’t, as most people like to say, “bipartisan” – they’re simply common sense. They recognize that reducing poverty isn’t about pouring more money into, or taking more money out of, our dysfunctional government programs. It’s about fixing the underlying system so that every dollar we spend actually connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market and civil society. Whether it’s empowering lower-income Americans with better health care options, or giving parents the power to choose where they send their children to school, many of our solutions to poverty will follow a similar pattern: we need to replace our unresponsive systems centralized in the Washington bureaucracy with bottom-up solutions that empower the people closest to the problems to find solutions that work best for them. For this, Utah offers a great model for the rest of the country. All across the state we see real, meaningful change in our communities achieved through a combination of efficient local government, a prosperous economy, an active civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world. In August, while crisscrossing the state during Congress’s so-called “recess,” I had the privilege of touring the facilities of Switchpoint, an organization that perfectly exemplifies the “Utah model” for fighting poverty. Located in St. George, Switchpoint provides temporary shelter and support services for the homeless in Washington County. And I can tell you, this was no D.C.-run welfare program: the people at Switchpoint did more than just offer a warm bed and a decent meal – they transformed lives. And it all happened organically: volunteers brought in non-profits and local government agencies so that Switchpoint residents could easily access the services they needed to get their lives back on track; local business and contractors donated materials and labor for renovations; another group donated computers so that residents can participate in on-line job training programs; religious groups and other charities donated crucial resources; and, perhaps best of all, the bulk of the operations of Switchpoint were carried out by the people staying there. All of this was living proof of what ordinary people can do – and will do – to help those around them. Even without a bureaucrat in D.C. telling them what to do and how to do it, the people of Washington County came together – as neighbors, business owners, and friends, volunteers and local government officials – to lift up the needy, bring in the marginalized, and restore hope to the most vulnerable.  I want to close with another story from our state – a story that shows the Switchpoint model is really the Utah model in miniature.  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 http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-praises-resignation-usss-director,Chaffetz Praises Resignation of U.S. Secret Service Director,2014-10-01,2014,2014-10,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=245c25e8-6867-43fd-8b3b-9777344046d0,Hatch on California Law to Protect Student Privacy,2014-10-01,2014,2014-10,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 Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today applauded the California Legislature for passing the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act to protect students’ online data. Hatch, along with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), introduced the Protecting Student Privacy Act in July to strengthen federal law to prohibit the sharing and use of private student data to third-party vendors, as well as to provide parents with clear information about where their children’s information is stored.  “It’s good to see that states are taking the important initiative to safeguard student’s data, and it’s time the federal government follows suit to tighten federal laws that govern student privacy,” Hatch said.  “The legislation Sen. Markey and I introduced in July does that by closing a loophole in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. It’s the right step to take and I hope Congress acts soon to protect students’ privacy.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z