url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-and-house-intelligence-committee-launch-investigation-into,Rep. Stewart and House Intelligence Committee Launch Investigation into Spying Allegations,2015-12-31,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) joined his committee colleagues in opening an investigation into the Obama Administration's practice of spying on members of Congress and some friendly foreign leaders. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the United States collected information on private exchanges between members of Congress and the Israeli Prime Minister during the Iran nuclear deal negotiations. This comes two years after President Obama announced he would no longer eavesdrop on friendly heads of state. Additionally, the law states that any intercepted communication between a U.S. government official and a foreign target must be destroyed unless the NSA Director grants a waiver. At this time, Congress is aware of no such waiver. ""If the Wall Street Journal report is correct, we've got a real problem, Stewart said. ""The National Security Agency already has a strained relationship with the American people, and breaking our privacy laws only weakens that relationship.Next week, the House Intelligence Committee is expected to meet with members of the Intelligence Community to get some answers to these very serious allegations.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-votes-strengthen-national-security,Chaffetz Votes to Strengthen National Security,2015-12-18,2015,2015-12,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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/rep-stewart-advances-republican-priorities-votes-for-omnibus-bill,"Rep. Stewart Advances Republican Priorities, Votes for Omnibus Bill",2015-12-18,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of the House Omnibus spending bill, which passed the House 316 - 118. In divided government, no one gets exactly what they want, Stewart said. But today, we funded the government with provisions that advance Republican priorities, including several of my own bills. First, this bill strengthens our national security. As a former military officer and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I have been a leader in the fight to protect our country. There is no more important thing I can do in Congress. This bill does that by restoring much needed funding for our military to ensure our troops are ready to defeat ISIS. It also strengthens some of our visa programs to keep terrorists from traveling to the United States. Second, it dismantles Obamacare by eliminating government subsides for insurance companies. Since I came to Congress I have fought at every opportunity to defund Obamacare. This provision is reason alone to support this bill. Third, this bill includes important provisions that are critical for Utah and my district. It fully funds the PILT program (Payments in Lieu of Taxes), which is absolutely vital to Utahs rural communities. It also stops the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the sage-grouse on the Endangered Species List. Additionally, this bill includes some meaningful tax reform, putting in place permanent tax breaks that will help small businesses and families. This Bill: Strengthens our National Defense. The bill restores funding for our military to ensure our troops can confront todays challenges and defeat ISIS. Dismantles Obamacare. It provides no new funding for Obamacare and prevents a taxpayer bailout of Obamacares risk corridor program. Funds the PILT Program. It protects important provisions for rural Utah by fully funding the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program. Prevents Sage Grouse Listing. The bill 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. Blocks EPA Overreach. It contains no funding for new or expanded EPA programs, holding the agency to its lowest funding levels since 2008 and its lowest staffing levels since 1989. Repeals the Oil Export Ban. Repealing this antiquated law will allow American companies to export oil oversees. Lifting this ban will create jobs and grow our economy. Includes the Protecting American from Tax Hikes Act. The omnibus bill also ensures the passage of meaningful tax reform, which makes over 20 tax relief provisions permanent, helping small businesses and families.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=449,Chaffetz Votes to Strengthen National Security,2015-12-18,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz released the following statement after voting in favor of the year-long spending bill to fund the government: “I take national security very seriously. The provisions in this bill to fund the military and reform our flawed visa waiver program outweigh other concerns I have with this deal. This is simply not the time to let down our guard on national security. There are a number of other important provisions that I believe will have a net positive impact, including protection from Obamacare’s flawed risk-corridor program."" BILL DETAILS",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-bishop-votes-yes-funding-bill,Rep. Bishop Votes YES on Funding Bill,2015-12-18,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01) released the following statement after the House passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2016:""This bill signals the end of the era of defense cuts. For too long, the Obama administration has weakened the US military by withholding the necessary funding to properly defend the nation. This bill is good for troops, their families, and the civilian workers who support them. The agreement finally starts the process of rebuilding the military. Rep. Bishop added: ""While this does contain much good, it also has shortcomings. House leadership has acknowledged these issues and they are particularly aware of the impacts on western priorities. I am confident that in the coming months, those shortcomings will be addressed and made right. The problem with the bill is what it could have been and what it should have been. Western issues that improve our lives should NOT be held hostage by Democrats in the House and Senate. These issues were eliminated with the threat of a government shutdown for political reasons.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-votes-prevent-tax-hikes-millions-americans,Chaffetz Votes to Prevent Tax Hikes for Millions of Americans,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=448,Chaffetz Votes to Prevent Tax Hikes for Millions of Americans,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz released the following statement after voting in favor of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act. “I am optimistic that this tax reform legislation will have a real and tangible impact on economic growth in this country. In addition to encouraging business investment, this package of reforms enhances taxpayer protections and reduces fraud and abuse. This is a strong first step toward meaningful tax reform that will make our tax code simpler and fairer. My vote today was a vote for Utah jobs and Utah economic growth."" ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-bishop-votes-protect-americans-tax-hikes,Rep. Bishop Votes to Protect Americans from Tax Hikes,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON -- Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted in favor of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act. The bill makes a number of tax provisions permanent and grants predictability, clarity, and certainty to individuals, families, and job creators. Rep. Bishop offered the following statement after the vote:""This bill reins in the overreaching IRS, and allows the American tax-payer more peace of mind. People can now plan for their futures because of the certainty this tax plan provides. This legislation also represents a victory against the Obamacare Medical Device Tax. This tax was wrong from the beginning. It hurts those who are most in need of our help. Without relief from this tax, Utah jobs would be lost. This fair and simple tax code will create jobs, unchain small businesses, and lead to more money in the pockets of families.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=340273be-9d14-4e0e-8a41-39013ec355cf,"VIDEO: Hatch Tax Relief Plan Will Directly Help Utahns, Utah Small Businesses",2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The PATH Act Boosts Economic Growth by Promoting Research, Investment, and Development In Utah WASHINGTONAfter years of facing years of uncertainty with their tax bills,Utahs small businesses and job creators no longer have to play a guessing game thanks tothe bipartisanPATH Act, whichprovides permanent tax reliefto grow our economy. With measures targeted to small business expensing, investments in research and development, and accelerated depreciation, the PATH Act allows job creatorsto plan ahead and invest in our economy. Utah is home to over 250,000 small businesses that employ approximately half of the private sector workforce in the state. Heres a look at the specific provisions in Senator Hatchs tax relief bill that will have the greatest impact on Utah businesses and hardworking families: Small Business:Permanent Section 179 Expensing This provision permanently extends the small business expensing limitation and phase-out amounts in effect from 2010 to 2014. It sets a new threshold at $500,000 and $2 million, respectively, from the current amounts of $25,000 and $200,000, respectively.This measure offersMain Street business owners tax relief for investing in the growth oftheir company and for hiring new workers. Big Business and Small Business:Permanent Research and Development Tax Credit This provision permanently extends the research & development (R&D) tax credit and, for the first time, allows for eligible small businesses to claim the credit against the alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability or against the employers payroll tax liability.Businesses large and small will have more incentives to invest in American innovation and create jobs here at home. Retail and Restaurants on Main Street:Permanent 15-Year Depreciation This provision permanently extends the 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property.For restaurants and retailers on Main Street, that means a lighter tax burden and more capital to invest in their businesses, workers, and communities.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=68871271-7276-4fb9-9bae-1bb40df9b5b0,"Cord Blood and Bone Marrow Bill Co-Sponsors Applaud House Passage, Urge President to Sign",2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, along with co-sponsors SenatorsRichard Burr, R-N.C., Franken, D-Minn.,and Jack Reed, D-R.I., issued the following statement after the House passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Authorization Act of 2015, sending the bill to the Presidents desk for his signature. Reauthorization of thissignificant, life-saving billwill advance the important work of the bone marrow and cord blood programsto promote new discoveries within the fields of cellular therapy and regenerative medicine, said Sen. Hatch.Enacting this billwill also reaffirm the commitment thatCongress made three decades ago to help patients with blood cancers and other life-threatening diseases byincreasing access to life-saving transplants. I am pleased the Senate passed this bill, which builds upon the highly successful National Marrow Donor Program that has been a lifeline for thousands of transplant patients over the last thirty years. I applaud Senator Hatch for his bipartisan leadership on this issue, said Sen. Reed. Bone marrow and cord blood transplants continue to offer effective treatments for a number of diseases and disorders, and passing this legislation marks a critical step forward in expanding access to lifesaving therapies to millions of patients with conditions that can be treated and even cured with bone marrow or cord blood. I am pleased to see that the House took action on this important legislation that can help save and improve the lives of patients who suffer from serious disorders, saidSen. Burr. This critical research is saving lives and bringing these therapies to families across the nation, and we must build on these efforts in order to meet the needs of patients in the future. ""Bone marrow and cord blood transplants support tens of thousands of Americans facing devastating diseases like leukemia and lymphoma,said Sen. Franken.This bill will ensure that the National Bone Marrow Donor Program, which is located in Minnesota, remains strong so that children and adults can access these life-saving transplants when they need them most. Im pleased we got this measure finished, and I look forward to the President signing it into law."" The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015 will reauthorize for another five years both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Programand the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI). The Program and the NCBI provide access to life-saving treatments for serious conditions and disease such as leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. Hatch, Reed, Burr, and Franken cosponsored the bill previously in 2010, and Hatch, Burr, and Reed cosponsored the legislation in2005. The 2005 law created the National Cord Blood Inventory.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d24e9f92-045d-4641-a4e1-4e0d67783cf5,Hatch Applauds Nomination of Ronald G. Russell to U.S. District Court,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WashingtonThe White House today announced the nomination of Ronald G. Russell, a shareholder in the Salt Lake City law firm Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined with Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in recommending Russells nomination to the President and applauded the announcement. Im extraordinarily pleased that the President has nominated Ron Russell to join the federal bench in Utah, Hatch said. Ron possesses a broad range of experiencefrom private practice to local government to a clerkship on the very court to which he has been nominatedthat have made him a widely respected member of the bar. I am confident that Ron will make an excellent jurist, andI will work to help ensure his timely confirmation by the Senate. Russell is a shareholder in the Salt Lake City law firm of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, where he specializes in commercial litigation and real estate law. He joined the law firm as an associate in 1983 and was elevated to partner in 1988. Previously, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable David K. Winder of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Russell has also served for twelve years as a part-time elected official in local government including one four-year term as a council member on the Centerville City Council from 1998 to 2001, as well as two consecutive terms as Mayor of Centerville from 2006 to 2013. Russell received his J.D., Order of the Coif, from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 1983 and his B.A. cum laude from Weber State College in 1980. Russell has been nominated to a seat that has been vacant since September 1, 2014, when Judge Brian Stewart took senior status. Over his 39 years of service in the United States Senate, Sen. Hatch has been in involved in the confirmation of 72% of the judges who have ever served on Utahs federal district court, three-quarters of which have been confirmed unanimously.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d5be62de-bda3-44aa-89f9-e45ad8629739,Sen. Hatch and Sen. Klobuchar Become Senate Co-Chairs of Rare Disease Congressional Caucus,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have joined the Rare Disease Congressional Caucus as Senate co-chairs to bring public and Congressional awareness to the unique needs of the rare disease community. Their new role is an opportunity to work with patients, physicians, scientists, and industry to create opportunities to address roadblocks in access to and development of crucial treatments. The Caucus works to give a permanent voice to the rare disease community on Capitol Hill and highlight the broad benefits of work on rare disease. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked hard to help the 30 million Americans with rare diseases, Sen. Hatch said. While we have previously taken important steps, like passing the Orphan Drug Act, the fact that 95 percent of rare diseases currently have no treatment shows that much more needs to be done. Senator Klobuchar has been a terrific partner on legislation to get vital treatments to patients in need, and I am honored to join her as Senate Co-Chairs of the Rare Disease Congressional Caucus. While there are about 7,000 known rare diseases, there are fewer than 500 drugs approved to treat any of those conditions, Sen.Klobuchar said.It is critical that we work together to increase the number of safe, effective, and affordable treatments that are available for people with rare diseases. I have long worked with Senator Hatch on this issue and I look forward to continuing this work as a Senate Co-Chair of the Rare Disease Congressional Caucus. Senator Hatch was an author of the Orphan Drug Act, which provides market exclusivity, tax credits, and other incentives to drugs that treat diseases affecting less than 200,000 people. Senators Hatch and Klobuchar are cosponsors ofthe OPEN ACT,legislation that builds on the success of the Orphan Drug Act to provide incentives to increase market potential for companies that repurpose previously approved drugs for the treatment of rare diseases. In addition, Senator Hatch recently sponsored or cosponsored several other pieces of legislation centered on helping those with rare diseases, includingthe Dormant Therapies Actandthe Advancing Targeted Therapies for Rare Diseases Act. Senator Klobuchar is a leader in efforts to boost innovation and provide safe options in the treatment of rare diseases. She has consistently called forincreased funding for the National Institutes of Health and medical research, which is critical to fueling the next generation of biomedical breakthroughs such as the treatment of rare diseases. She also introduced the OPEN Act with Senator Hatch to increase the number of safe, effective, and affordable treatments that are available for people with rare diseases.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b5992e42-6716-40e6-94d6-c1fae9e32bb1,Lee Calls For Democratic Process On Omnibus,2015-12-17,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Thursday regarding the omnibus spending bill scheduled for a vote Friday:The omnibus spending bill soon to come before us is chock full of controversial policies that never would have passed had they been exposed to the light of day, Lee said.Not only does this bill spend an additional half-billion dollars on an unreformed and failing Head Start program, not only does this bill airdrop an entire cybersecurity bill which lacks important protections for privacy and personal information, but according to the White House, this bill allows for the full funding of the Green Climate Fund, negotiated at the recent Paris Climate talks, Lee continued.None of these policy changes would have passed by themselves. These are highly controversial policies and merit an open and honest debate on the Senate floor. It is an insult to this body, the Constitution, and the American people, that the least trusted institution in America is planning to sneak these policies through without public scrutiny or amendment. We have doubled down on everything the American people cant stand about Washington, and many are now congratulating each other for it.Rather than accepting this monstrosity, we should instead pass a six-week continuing resolution which would allow for an open process where these issues can be properly debated",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5649e9cd-0283-4eac-b150-bdaaf5cf96f2,"Hatch Announces Tax Relief Deal for Utah Families, Job Creators & Entrepreneurs",2015-12-16,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Bipartisan Legislation Lays the Groundwork for Comprehensive Tax Reform WASHINGTON Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), alongside House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced a bipartisan, bicameral deal on legislation to provide permanent tax relief for hard-working Utah families, college students, charities, small business and enterprises on the forefront of innovation. The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015 is a culmination of recent work done in both chambers of Congress and renews and makes permanentimportant tax incentives that support both individuals and job creators. This important achievement demonstrates what happens when Congress works for the American people,said Hatch.After years of short-term extensions, good faith bipartisan compromise prevailed. The result? A strong common-sense deal that puts in place permanent and responsible tax relief to help businesses, families and individuals keep more of their hard-earned dollars and promotes greater economic growth here at home. This bill also protects job creators by suspending one of Obamacares most egregious taxes. By providing permanency and certainty in the tax code, this bipartisan bill sets the stage for a comprehensive tax overhaul that will provide bigger paychecks, better jobs, and more opportunity for the American people. The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees, which have jurisdiction over the American tax system, have spearheaded efforts in Congress to overhaul the nations broken tax code. Through working groups, hearings, roundtables, issue papers and markups, lawmakers have examined ways to make the U.S. tax code simpler, fairer, and more efficient. Earlier this year, the Senate Finance Committeereported outa bipartisan tax extenders package that extended provisions to assist families, individuals and small businesses for two years. The House Ways and Means Committee advanced several tax bills that would make permanent a number of policies, like incentives for innovative research and development, among others. The PATH Act includes a number of bipartisan legislative policies that were advanced by the two tax writing committees through open process and debate. Additionally, the legislation suspends the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices through 2017. To view a copy of the bill text clickhere. A section-by-section summary of the legislation can be foundhere.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=8c4f5308-9c96-43a2-9199-959cb47dc4eb,Hatch: PATH Act Provides Critical Tax Relief and Stability for Utah Families and Job Creators,2015-12-16,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"""All of these provisions benefit American families ... Our legislation will ensure that the millions of Americans who benefit from these tax provisions will be able to rely on and plan around them well into the future. WASHINGTON In a speech on the Senate floor today, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) highlighted theProtecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015,a bipartisan and bicameral bill that provides permanent tax relief for hard-working Utah families, college students, charities, and small businesses. Hatch co-authored the legislation alongside House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Oregon). The PATH Act includes a number of provisions to make responsible tax relief permanent, suspends an egregious Obamacare tax, and lays the path for comprehensive tax reform. Passing this legislation and making more tax policies permanent will provide significant tax relief for hardworking taxpayers in every walk of American life, from the middle class to military families to the working poor. It will do the same for businesses and job creators throughout our country, resulting in a healthier U.S. economy, increased growth, and more American jobs,Hatch said. Put simply, more permanence in the tax code will be a good thing for our country, and the PATH Act will provide just the kind of permanence we need. Hatch proceeded to call on both parties of Congress to unite around the bipartisan PATH Act. Both parties should be able to support the overall package weve put together and, without question, every one of us should welcome the positive impact this bill will have on our economy and on our future legislative efforts here in Congress,Hatch continued. I urge all of my colleagues to support the PATH Act and provide real tax relief at this critical time. The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, last night, after months of discussion and several weeks of intense negotiations, bipartisan leaders from both the House and Senate reached an agreement on both the substance and a procedural path forward for legislation that will provide millions of American families and businesses with much-needed tax relief and set the stage for comprehensive tax reform in the future. The bill, which were calling the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes, or PATH, Act of 2015, would make a number of temporary tax provisions permanent, putting an end to the repeated tax extenders exercise that has plagued Congress for decades and giving greater certainty to U.S. taxpayers across the board. There are no two ways about it, Mr. President, this is a historic bill. It is actually the latest in a long line of historic bills weve considered in the Senate this year and it has quite a bit in common with some of the other efforts weve tackled in 2015. For example, for many years now, much of what weve done in Congress has been dictated by the next deadline, cliff, or crisis around the corner. And, more often than not, the tendency has been to simply kick every can down the road and then give speeches about why we shouldnt do that anymore. This year, the Senate has worked to end the practice of governing by crisis. Among other things, weve passed bipartisan legislation to repeal and replace the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR, formula and to provide long-term funding for highway and infrastructure projects. Both of those issues had plagued Congress for decades, with permanent or long-term fixes seemingly always out of reach, regularly demonstrating that Congress was too divided and too ineffective to reach any meaningful solutions. The same could be said for tax extenders, which has been an almost yearly exercise in relative futility, characterized by partisan bickering as the deadlines approach with short-term extensions enacted at the last minute, leaving no one certainly not American taxpayers feeling any better in the end. Yet, with the PATH Act, as with the SGR and highway funding bills, weve been able to reach a bipartisan agreement that would effectively end this cycle. Now, Mr. President, we have to pass it. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 52 separate tax provisions what we typically refer to as extenders expired at the end of 2014. Thats 52 separate provision that, on a relatively frequent basis, face expiration and require us to reach agreements on further extensions. Our bill would reduce that number down to 33 provisions, still far too many, but a significant relief in terms of the ongoing extenders pressure. Most importantly, the bill makes permanent many of the most consequential extenders provisions the ones that tend to drive the crisis-and-cliff mentality when it comes to tax extenders further relieving the pressure and allowing Congress to function more effectively. By adding more permanence to the tax code, we will allow families and businesses to better plan for the future. In addition, we will adjust the tax and revenue baseline to make conditions vastly more favorable for comprehensive tax reform in the future, a major priority for members of both parties. Most importantly, passing this legislation and making more tax policies permanent will provide significant tax relief for hardworking taxpayers in every walk of American life, from the middle class to military families to the working poor. It will do the same for businesses and job creators throughout our country, resulting in a healthier U.S. economy, increased growth, and more American jobs. Put simply, Mr. President, more permanence in the tax code will be a good thing for our country, and the PATH Act will provide just the kind of permanence we need. So, lets take a few minutes to look at some of the key provisions of this legislation. Ill start by talking about some of the biggest priorities that my friends on the other side of the aisle brought into the recent negotiations. As we all remember, President Obamas so-called stimulus included provisions that made some of the biggest refundable tax credits in the tax code even more refundable, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, and the Child Tax Credit, or CTC. These increased credits which, when boiled down, are essentially additional cash payments made directly from the government to an individual filing a tax return were originally designed to be temporary and have had to be extended a few times over the years. Going into these negotiations, Democrats essentially demanded that the enhancements for the EITC and CTC, along with a partially refundable college tax credit that was also created in the stimulus, be made permanent. As you might expect, Republicans were reluctant to go down that road, not because we dont want to help families who benefit from these credits, but because we know that refundable credits are particularly susceptible to error, fraud, and overpayment. Those types of improper payments are well documented, particularly with regard to the EITC where, every year, we lose tens of billions of dollars to either deception or bureaucratic mistakes. However, we opted to accept making these credits permanent because doing so allowed the negotiations to move forward. But, we did demand and the Democrats agreed to include significant provisions to improve program integrity with regard to these credits in order to reduce improper payments going forward. In fact, if enacted, the program integrity provisions in this bill will be the most robust improvements to address waste, fraud, and abuse in the tax code in nearly 20 years. So, essentially, this compromise on refundable credits was the very definition of a win-win situation, particularly when you consider the other provisions have been included in this legislation as a result. With this bill, well be able to secure key incentives for economic growth. For example, the bill makes permanent Section 179 small businesses expensing, which allows small businesses the drivers of American job creation to grow and invest with more immediate tax benefits. This has been a top priority for many members of Congress, not to mention virtually everyone in the business community. The PATH Act will also improve and make permanent the Research and Development Tax Credit, a vital tax provision for companies and industries that thrive on innovation and research, areas where the U.S. continues to lead the world. Our bill also extends the term for bonus depreciation, giving more companies greater incentives to invest in assets that will help their businesses grow and expand. This, too, has been a long-term priority for the business community and many members of Congress, and, while we werent able to make it permanent, we did improve and extend this important tax incentive. The bill will also make key improvements to make America more competitive on the world stage. For example, it permanently extends the active financing exception, or AFE, from subpart F income and it provides a five-year extension for the Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) Look-Through provision. Both of these tax provisions give American companies owned by American stockholders and employing American workers a greater ability to compete internationally. This is important if, like me, you want to see U.S. companies remain U.S. companies. In addition to these top priorities for businesses and job creators in the U.S., the PATH Act would provide significant tax relief for families. The bill makes permanent the deduction for state and local sales tax. It makes permanent the Low Income Military Housing Credit and the employer wage credit for active duty military employees. And, it provides a long-term extension and an expansion of eligibility for Work Opportunity Tax Credits. All of these provisions benefit American families in various regions under a number of different circumstances. Our legislation will ensure that the millions of Americans who benefit from these tax provisions will be able to rely on and plan around them well into the future. Not a bad result if you ask me. Im not done yet, Mr. President. In addition to the many benefits well provide to families and businesses, the PATH Act would also give significant tax relief to charities. It would, for example, make sure that charitable distributions from IRAs remain tax-free on a permanent basis. And, the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory would also be made permanent under the bill, as would the provision that incentivizes S Corporations to make charitable contributions of property. Ive covered quite a bit of ground here, Mr. President, and Im really only going through the highlights. I havent even gotten to the Obamacare provisions yet. As we negotiated this legislation, the most difficult part was probably dealing with the rumor mill, which, I suppose, was not unexpected. Most of the really outrageous rumors we heard during this process dealt with provisions of the so-called Affordable Care Act. People were claiming that Senate Republicans had agreed to bail out the Obamacare risk corridor program in order to get a deal. We heard that there was an agreement to provide tax relief to prop up the failing Obamacare exchanges. None of these rumors were true, of course. This exercise in tax permanence was never going to be used to solidify Obamacare and Republicans never for a second considered allowing that to happen. However, because many Democrats have begun to recognize some of the more problematic elements of the Presidents health law, we agreed on the need to suspend one of the more harmful taxes imposed under Obamacare. The bill includes a two-year moratorium on the Medical Device Tax, one of the more unpopular and poorly-drafted taxes included in the health law that has, in recent years, drawn the ire of Republicans and Democrats alike. This moratorium is important, Mr. President, not only because it demonstrates the bipartisan opposition to the tax, but because it will help patients and consumers throughout the country who have seen their health costs go up because of the device tax. When all is said and done, Mr. President, this legislation provides roughly $650 billion in tax relief over the next ten years for families, job creators, and others. That is real money that will help millions of people and provide real growth for our economy. That, Mr. President, is the real value of greater permanence in our tax code and is the biggest reason we need to pass this legislation. Now, dont get me wrong, I dont believe this is a perfect bill. Its not even close to perfect. As Ive grown fond of saying, if we were living in the United States of Orrin Hatch, this legislation would look a lot different. But, though it pains me to admit it sometimes, thats not where we live. Here, in the real world, any undertaking worth the effort is going to require compromise. I know I say that a lot. In fact, Ive probably said something about the importance of compromise and learning the art of the doable almost every time weve considered a high-profile piece of legislation this year. But, that doesnt make my arguments any less true. This is a good bill. Period. Anyone, if they are so inclined, could cling to the parts they dont like and make excuses to vote no. But, taken as a whole, both parties should be able to support the overall package weve put together and, without question, every one of us should welcome the positive impact this bill will have on our economy and on our future legislative efforts here in Congress. I urge all of my colleagues to support the PATH Act and provide real tax relief at this critical time. Now, before I close, Mr. President, I just have to note that a lot of work has gone into this legislation. Every provision of this bill has had a number of champions in Congress who have worked for years to preserve and enhance them in the hopes of eventually making them permanent. I want to acknowledge some of those efforts here today, particularly those of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee. For example, the deduction for state and local sales taxes which this bill makes permanent has had a number of champions on both sides of the aisle. In our committee, Senators Enzi, Cornyn, Thune, and Heller have all made this issue a priority and our legislation will ensure that their work pays off. Another one of the more significant tax provisions this bill would make permanent is the Research and Development tax credit. This has been a top priority of mine for many years. And, Senators Cornyn, Crapo, and Roberts have also played leading roles in this effort over the years. Section 179 small business expensing will also be made permanent under this bill, and Senators Toomey, Roberts, Thune, Portman, and Isakson have all been leaders on this issue for many years. The bill would also make permanent the accelerated fifteen-year depreciation for restaurants and retail, a provision that Senators Burr, Cornyn, Crapo, Heller, Isakson, Roberts, and Portman have all worked long and hard to keep in place. In addition, Senator Enzi has been a big supporter of making the active financing exception, or AFE, permanent. Our bill, once again, accomplishes this goal. On the charitable side, Senator Roberts has been a strong supporter of the S Corporation basis adjustment for charitable contributions and the charitable deduction for food inventory contributions, both of which well make permanent by passing this bill. Senator Thune has also been a leader with regard to the food inventory deduction, and hes also worked to ensure that charitable distributions from IRAs remain tax free, another permanent provision in the PATH Act. Senator Heller has championed the special rules for real property contributions made for conservation purposes, yet another item that our bill makes permanent. The deduction for teacher classroom expenses is also made permanent in this bill. Senator Burr has been a strong supporter of that provision. In addition, the PATH Act will make the low income housing tax credit permanent, something both Senator Roberts and Senator Crapo have worked on for some time. Senator Portman has pushed to extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and to expand it to include the long-term unemployed. His proposed modification is included in our bill as is an unprecedented five-year extension for the credit. Of course, this isnt an exhaustive list, Mr. President. For right now, Im focusing mainly on temporary provisions that well make permanent by passing the PATH Act. If I start talking about my colleagues efforts on the shorter-term extensions in the bill, wed be here all day. I do, however, also want to give credit where it is due on the Obamacare provisions. For years now, opposition to the misguided Medical Device Tax and thats the most charitable description of that tax youll hear from me has been gaining momentum. And, throughout that time, Senators Toomey, Burr, and Coats have worked very hard on the Finance Committee to push for a repeal. As I noted earlier, our bill would take a significant step forward in this effort by imposing a two-year moratorium on this job-killing tax. As you can see Mr. President, the PATH Act reflects the efforts and priorities of many members of the Senate. As the debate on this important bill begins in earnest, I am particularly grateful for the work my colleagues on the Finance Committee have put in to advance the interests of their constituents. Each of them has put a huge stamp on this legislation and, with a little luck and a handful more votes, their work will be permanently enshrined in the tax code. There are, of course, others have also worked hard on various parts of this bill. Virtually every Senator or, at the very least, every Senators constituents has high-priority items included in this bill. Thats a big reason why it is important that we get this done for the American people.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c022d4bf-f3be-4559-a55c-332effbca0ee,"Hatch Pays Tribute to Beloved Utahn, Bishop Nathan Graham",2015-12-16,2015,2015-12,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, spoke on the Senate floor today to pay tribute to native Utahn Nathan Graham, a beloved bishop and member of the Washington D.C. LDS community who passed away suddenly last week. Nate was not only a celebrated member of the tightly-knit community of Utahns here in Washington, but also a well-respected, former staffer of the United States Senate. Tragically, at the young age of 37, Nate was struck by a random infection and passed away unexpectedly while on a business trip to China last week. Although he is no longer with us, the great love he shared with others remains in our hearts. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a beloved Utahn who was taken years before his timeNathan Graham. Nate was not only a celebrated member of the tightly-knit community of Utahns here in Washington, but also a well-respected, former staffer of the United States Senate. Tragically, at the young age of 37, Nate was struck by a random infection and passed away unexpectedly while on a business trip to China last week. Although he is no longer with us, the great love he shared with others remains in our hearts. Born in Layton, Utah, Nate graduated from Northridge High School before studying political science at Weber State University and moving to Washington, D.C. From 2003 to 2009, he served as a legislative assistant for my friend and former colleague, Senator Robert F. Bennett. Nate was Senator Bennett's key staffer on the Transatlantic Policy Networka group thatincludes U.S. and European elected officials, as well as business, policy,and academic leaders in Europe and the U.S. As a military legislative assistant, Nate also worked closely with combat leaders at Utah's military installations, including Hill Air Force Base, the Dugway Proving Ground, and the Utah Test and Training Range. In this capacity, he also advanced Senator Bennetts priorities on the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. The Senators agenda included increasing funding for microfinance programs, strengthening the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and working to acquire the F-35 aircraft at Hill Air Force Base. As Senator Bennetts trusted adviser, he accompanied the Senator to Europe several times for TPN business and meetings. He also traveled to Egypt, Taiwan, and China in support of Senator Bennett's work on foreign policy. Nates trademark humility endeared him to all. He never thought himself above anyone else, and he was always helpful and kind to everyoneregardless of status or position. Nate even had a special reputation as a mentor to Senator Bennetts junior staff. He looked out for young staffers just starting their careers and actively searched out new experiences for their professional development. Following his time in the Senate, Nate entered the private sector, accepting a position with Procter & Gamble as their Senior Manager for Global Government Relations and Public Policy. Although Nate never worked for me directly, he was a gifted public servant whose contributions were highly regarded across the entire Utah delegation. Speaking to Nates character, Senator Bennettwho is going through his own personal battle with cancer right nowsent me the following note over the weekend: Nate Graham was a valued and much-loved member of my staff who was on track for great success in life, both professionally and with his beautiful family. This is a terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. We will miss him terribly. While Nate was working for Senator Bennett, he met and fell in love with his sweetheart and eternal companion, Melanie Mickelson. I know Bob was delighted whenever he could be a matchmaker for some of his staffers. In addition to Melanie, Nate is survived by their four sons: Rowan, James, Lincoln, and Griffinwho was born just 2 months ago. Nate was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having served an LDS mission in Honduras and Belize. Just six weeks before he passed, he was released as the bishop of a local congregation in Arlington, Virginia, where he built a reputation for fostering a community of love and friendship. A tidal wave of support has washed over the Graham family in the wake of Nates passing. In just a few days, friends and neighbors have already raised nearly $100,000 in a crowdfunding effort to support the family. Mr. President, I would like to close with the words of Scottish poet Henry Francis Lyte, from his hymn, Abide With Me, which he wrote on his death bed in 1847. This song is well-beloved across the LDS community. It offers comfort and peace amid the sadness of loss. I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless; Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness; Where is deaths sting? Where, grave, thy victory? I triumph still, if Thou abide with me. We know that Nate now abides in a holier place. His family is in our thoughts just as they are in our prayers. May God comfort them, and may He comfort all of us as we mourn the loss of an exceptional friend, father, and husband.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=1e75b998-f085-4870-8a52-69bb719b4d16,Senator Hatch's Tribute to Bishop Nathan Graham,2015-12-16,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a beloved Utahn who was taken years before his timeNathan Graham. Nate was not only a celebrated member of the tightly-knit community of Utahns here in Washington, but also a well-respected, former staffer of the United States Senate. Tragically, at the young age of 37, Nate was struck by a random infection and passed away unexpectedly while on a business trip to China last week. Although he is no longer with us, the great love he shared with others remains in our hearts. Born in Layton, Utah, Nate graduated from Northridge High School before studying political science at Weber State University and moving to Washington, D.C. From 2003 to 2009, he served as a legislative assistant for my friend and former colleague, Senator Robert F. Bennett. Nate was Senator Bennett's key staffer on the Transatlantic Policy Networka group thatincludes U.S. and European elected officials, as well as business, policy,and academic leaders in Europe and the U.S. As a military legislative assistant, Nate also worked closely with combat leaders at Utah's military installations, including Hill Air Force Base, the Dugway Proving Ground, and the Utah Test and Training Range. In this capacity, he also advanced Senator Bennetts priorities on the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. The Senators agenda included increasing funding for microfinance programs, strengthening the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and working to acquire the F-35 aircraft at Hill Air Force Base. As Senator Bennetts trusted adviser, he accompanied the Senator to Europe several times for TPN business and meetings. He also traveled to Egypt, Taiwan, and China in support of Senator Bennett's work on foreign policy. Nates trademark humility endeared him to all. He never thought himself above anyone else, and he was always helpful and kind to everyoneregardless of status or position. Nate even had a special reputation as a mentor to Senator Bennetts junior staff. He looked out for young staffers just starting their careers and actively searched out new experiences for their professional development. Following his time in the Senate, Nate entered the private sector, accepting a position with Procter & Gamble as their Senior Manager for Global Government Relations and Public Policy. Although Nate never worked for me directly, he was a gifted public servant whose contributions were highly regarded across the entire Utah delegation. Speaking to Nates character, Senator Bennettwho is going through his own personal battle with cancer right nowsent me the following note over the weekend: Nate Graham was a valued and much-loved member of my staff who was on track for great success in life, both professionally and with his beautiful family. This is a terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. We will miss him terribly. While Nate was working for Senator Bennett, he met and fell in love with his sweetheart and eternal companion, Melanie Mickelson. I know Bob was delighted whenever he could be a matchmaker for some of his staffers. In addition to Melanie, Nate is survived by their four sons: Rowan, James, Lincoln, and Griffinwho was born just 2 months ago. Nate was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having served an LDS mission in Honduras and Belize. Just six weeks before he passed, he was released as the bishop of a local congregation in Arlington, Virginia, where he built a reputation for fostering a community of love and friendship. A tidal wave of support has washed over the Graham family in the wake of Nates passing. In just a few days, friends and neighbors have already raised nearly $100,000 in a crowdfunding effort to support the family. Mr. President, I would like to close with the words of Scottish poet Henry Francis Lyte, from his hymn, Abide With Me, which he wrote on his death bed in 1847. This song is well-beloved across the LDS community. It offers comfort and peace amid the sadness of loss: I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless; Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness; Where is deaths sting? Where, grave, thy victory? I triumph still, if Thou abide with me. We know that Nate now abides in a holier place. His family is in our thoughts just as they are in our prayers. May God comfort them, and may He comfort all of us as we mourn the loss of an exceptional friend, father, and husband.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/op-ed-in-the-deseret-news-what-every-candidate-must-learn-from-the,Op-ed in the Deseret News: What every Candidate Must Learn from the Debacle in Syria,2015-12-15,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Our public discussion of Syria in recent months has focused on the refugee crisis and on closing loopholes terrorists might use to exploit the crisis, as evidenced by the horrifying shootings in San Bernardino Dec. 2. Amidst this dialogue, its important we dont lose sight of the cause of the Syria debacle. In future years, historians will use the Obama administrations handling of the Syrian Civil War as a case study in failure of leadership. The substance of his Syrian policy has been reactive (every U.S. action during the crisis has been in response to events initiated by our adversaries), his messaging naive (ISIS is the JV squad of terrorism), inane (Assads days are numbered), insincere (the use of chemical weapons will result in U.S. military action against Assad), and duplicitous (U.S. Special Forces in Syria are not on a combat mission). Substituting hope for strategy, President Obama has functioned as an observer in chief. Now it seems his primary goal is to run out the clock and let the next president deal with a strategic, economic and humanitarian disaster. The next president will not have such a luxury. As we enter an election year, its critical that each candidate learn the right lessons from Syria. There are at least three critical lessons to be learned. First, as in every foreign policy crisis, the president must clearly define our national security interests. After more than four years, this president still has not done so. But our interest is clear: Syria cannot become a safe haven for terrorist organizations intent on destabilizing the region and attacking the U.S. and our allies. Yes, a unified Syria led by Bashar Assad is a problem for the U.S. But a fractured Syria split equally between Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and ISIS is a much bigger problem and poses a much greater risk. President Obama never understood or defined U.S. interests in Syria, and his inaction has made the problem worse. Second, America must lead. History has shown that if we act decisively, our allies will join us. On the other hand, if America tries to lead from behind, our allies will hesitate while our enemies observe our absence and take the strategic initiative, as Russia and Iran have. Early in the Syrian Civil War, the majority of the rebels were secular moderates. I had the chance to meet with their leaders and came away convinced they were sincere in their commitment to a secular government and reform. But because these moderates were the only potential government acceptable to the West, they were quickly targeted for extermination by both Assad and various radical terrorist groups. Our failure to support them doomed them to destruction and left us with no alternative but all of the bad options we face today. Third, credibility counts. Starting in 2012, President Obama stated very clearly that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that would have very serious consequences. So it was that when Assad launched a chemical weapon attack that killed 1,400 Syrian civilians, the moderate rebels expected the U.S. to take direct action against the Assad regime. When President Obama who has an extensive history of executive overreach on issues he cares about punted that decision to Congress, the rebels were weakened and our enemies emboldened. Worse, by embracing the Russian initiative to work with Assad in removing his chemical weapons, we legitimized his continued rule. Partly because of our own actions, more than four years after Obama administration officials first claimed Assads days are numbered, Assad remains in power and will be for the foreseeable future. And lets remember: other unsavory regimes are watching and taking note of the lack of U.S. leadership. Weak responses in one part of the world often trigger aggression elsewhere. Is there a solution in Syria? Certainly not an easy one. There are a number of ideas worth considering, including a no-fly zone, safe zones, and better assistance to the Kurds, with whom the U.S. has a successful history of collaboration. These all have merit, but nothing this president does in the next year is likely to change the perception that his current rhetoric about the future of Syria is as worthless as his previous red line in Syria. It will take a new president, one who views the use of American power as a force for good in the world, and is willing to use it wisely, to restore our standing and secure our national interests. If there is a silver lining in Syria, perhaps it is that we now have solid evidence of what happens when the U.S. shirks its role as a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. Lets hope the next president learns from this administrations mistakes. Published by the Deseret News on December 15, 2015.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d9396556-3163-4de8-a700-22a0ab033572,Hatch Statement on Paris Climate Deal,2015-12-14,2015,2015-12,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, issued the following statement following theadministrations announcement that aninternationalclimate deal had been reached in Paris: This agreementsimilar to previous deals that have failed in the pastis unenforceable and non-binding as a matter of domestic law. Moreover, it lacks the support of the American people, which is why Obama administrationnegotiators insistedon includingwatered-down language to avoid having to bring the agreementbefore the Senate for approval. Sadly, this failure of leadership is par for the course for this administration. President Obamas unlawful regulations put forth by the EPA have no support in Congress and, like the Paris deal, will make little to no difference in reducing global emissions. These regulations will only raise domestic energy prices and hurt the pocketbooks of American families. Senator Hatch was a cosponsor of the two resolutions of disapproval that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Senator Hatch also signed a letter to the President affirming that any binding climate agreement made in Parismust be brought before Congress for approval.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-leads-western-states-coalition-fighting-introduction-mexican-wolf-utah,Chaffetz leads western states coalition in fighting the introduction of the Mexican Wolf in Utah,2015-12-11,2015,2015-12,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=447,Chaffetz leads western states coalition in fighting the introduction of the Mexican Wolf in Utah,2015-12-11,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) joined Utah Representatives Rob Bishop, Chris Stewart and Mia Love, along with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) in sending a letter to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell expressing deep-seated concerns about the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program. The letter echoes bipartisan concerns voiced by the affected states. In the letter, the lawmakers argue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has “utilized the same recovery plan for the Mexican wolf since the early 1980’s.” That plan, they argue, is out of date and not based on the best science available. While historically 90% of Mexican wolves occupied territory in Mexico, “the Service seems committed to restoring Mexican wolves only in the United States,” the letter reads. Furthermore, the representatives point out that there is no historical evidence to show that Mexican wolves ever occupied some of the states and areas to which they are being “restored.” The letter concludes by asking that any updates to the recovery plan include input from local stakeholders, set achievable recovery goals with specific target numbers, and coordinate to achieve those goals within the wolf’s historic Mexican habitat – 90% of which is in Mexico. Full text of the letter can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=0ba33c94-4579-4b79-81d3-7da148e58416,Senator Delivers Final Speech in Series Highlighting Importance of Religious Liberty,2015-12-10,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, delivered the eighth and final speech in aseries on the importance of religious liberty in public life. The series, begun in September, focuses on ways this fundamental freedom is under attack both at home and abroad, and is informed by his work on the issue spanning over two decades. Senator Hatch was a co-author of the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Senator Hatchs previous speechesaddressed the following topics: 1basic principles of religious liberty; 2 the history of religious liberty; 3 status and substance of religious liberty; 4the balance between faith and public life; 5contemporary threats to religious liberty; 6threats to religious liberty abroad; and 7the importance of religious liberty to Democracy My purpose in this series is to present the full story of religious freedom, in the hope that we may better understand and appreciate it and draw guidance for the future, Hatch said. Charting a path forward requires understanding where we have been and taking stock of where we are right now. The story of religious freedom as I have laid it out shows that we must choose between two starkly different paths. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, today I complete the series of floor speeches on religious freedom that I began in September. My purpose in this series is to present the full story of religious freedom, in the hope that we may better understand and appreciate it and draw guidance for the future. Charting a path forward requires understanding where we have been and taking stock of where we are right now. The story of religious freedom as I have laid it out shows that we must choose between two starkly different paths. The story begins with religious freedom itself and why it is uniquely important and requires special protection. As I said in September, No decision is more fundamental to human existence than the decision we make regarding our relationship to the Divine. No act of government can be more intrusive or more invasive of individual autonomy and free will than the act of compelling a person to violate his or her sincerely chosen religious beliefs. The story continues with the central place of religious freedom in Americas identity. At no time in world history has religious freedom been such an integral part of a nations origin and character. The seeds were planted centuries before the actual founding of this country, with one religious community after another coming to these shores to freely practice their faith. When Congress unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act less than two decades ago, we declared that religious freedom undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. The story of religious freedom in America includes understanding both its status and its substance. In October, I explained how the status of religious freedom can be summarized as both inalienable and preeminent. Religious freedom is inalienable because, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, it comes from God, not from government, and because it is endowed, that is, part of our very humanity. And religious freedom is preeminent or, as James Madison put it, precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. I also explained that the substance of religious freedom can be understood in terms of its depth, or what it includes, and its breadth, or to whom it applies. Religious freedom, for example, includes much more than religious belief or speech. In fact, protecting in law both religious belief and the exercise of that belief preceded the First Amendment by 150 years. Madison again gives us guidance, defining the exercise of religion as the freely chosen manner of discharging the duty an individual believes he or she owes to God. This includes both belief and behavior, in public and in private, individually and collectively. The substance of religious freedom also includes its breadth of application to all human beings. The First Amendment protects not certain exercises of religion, or the exercise of religion by certain persons, but the free exercise of religion itself. As I mentioned, Congress unanimously enacted the International Religious Freedom Act. The vote in this body was 98-0 and 21 senators serving today 12 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted for this legislation. So did Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who were serving here. That law declares religious freedom to be a universal human right, a pillar of our nation, and a fundamental freedom. This is the path of religious freedom on which we traveled for three centuries before a very different path emerged. In November, I outlined how the courts have begun to distort the First Amendments protection for religious freedom. Americas founders included a narrow prohibition on government establishment of religion as a support for the broad individual freedom to exercise religion. Since the mid-20th century, however, courts have instead expanded the establishment clause into a virtual ban on religion in public life and narrowed the free exercise clause so that government may more easily restrict the practice of religion. I also examined how the courts, the Obama administration, and state legislatures are contributing to attacks on religious freedom here in America. The common theme in these attacks is that, far from being special, religious freedom must yield to other values or political objectives. Even worse, some are arguing that religious freedom is actually something negative that should be limited or even suppressed. These attacks not only target particular exercises of religion, but undermine religious freedom itself. Rather than inalienable, these attacks would turn religious freedom into something granted or restricted by the government at its whim. Instead of preeminent, these attacks would reduce religious freedom to something optional and subservient. Rather than something deep and broad, these attacks turn religious freedom into something shallow and narrow. State courts, for example, have imposed heavy fines on business owners who decline, based on their religious beliefs, to provide services such as photography, flowers, or catering for same-sex weddings. The decision by these business owners did not prevent anyone from getting married or from having the wedding they chose. Other photographers, florists, and bakers gladly stepped up to do business. The only real effect of these fines was to punish these individuals for exercising their religion. By punishing the exercise of religion itself, these courts are saying that religious freedom must necessarily yield to other political priorities. Obamacare made the same two-part attack on religious freedom, but on a much larger scale. First, far from trying to accommodate religious freedom in developing Obamacare or its implementing regulations, neither Congress nor the Obama administration gave religious freedom any consideration whatsoever. This is appalling in several different ways. Not only does it reflect a callous attitude toward this fundamental right, but it ignores the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts command that federal law properly accommodate religious freedom. The only way to avoid that requirement is for Congress explicitly to exempt a statute from RFRAs standards. Congress did not do so. But consider this. On January 15, 2010, President Obama issued his first Religious Freedom Day proclamation. He reaffirmed our nations enduring commitment to the universal human right of religious freedom. Just two months later, he signed into law the statute that so blatantly ignored and would be used to undermine that very universal human right. The second way that Obamacare undermines religious freedom is by imposing significant burdens on the actual exercise of religion. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, tried to force business owners to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control that violate their religious beliefs. Thankfully, the Supreme Court last year said that the Obama administration should have more properly accommodated religious freedom. Another case is now before the Supreme Court in which the Obama administration is demanding that a religious organization be forced to participate in providing insurance coverage for practices that violate their religious beliefs. The Obama administration, with its army of smart lawyers and deep well of taxpayer dollars, is fighting tooth and nail to make sure that its political objectives quash religious freedom. Last week, I outlined the benefits that religion and religious freedom provide. It is essential to forming and securing our basic rights. Religion was the engine driving great social movements such as abolition and civil rights. It motivates significantly greater contributions by individuals to charities of all kinds and inspires many of the largest charitable organizations in the country. But religion is not simply beneficial to society; it is an indispensable feature of any free government. Without religion and the moral instruction it provides, freedom falters and democracy all too easily dissolved into tyrant. In the 18th century, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared that the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality. And in the 21st century, Harvard Professor Mary Anne Glendon argues persuasively that religious freedom reduces societal violence and correlates with democratic longevity. Mr. President, the story of religious freedom that I have offered over the last few months presents a choice that we must make as we consider the way forward. On one path, religious freedom is an inalienable and preeminent right of all people; on the other path, it is an uncertain and optional possibility for some people. On one path, the government must accommodate religious freedom; on the other path, religious freedom must accommodate the government. One path is consistent with our history, founding, character, commitments, and example to the rest of the world. The other path rejects that history, turns its back on our commitments, and abandons human rights in favor of shifting political agendas. Here is how I put it in one of my speeches last month: Subjugating religious beliefs to government decrees is not the price of citizenship. To the contrary, respecting and honoring the fundamental rights of all Americans is the price our government pays to enjoy the continued consent of the American people. We must decide whether we still believe what our nation, our people, and our leaders have said and done. James Madison wrote that religious freedom is an inalienable right that takes precedence over the claims of civil society. Thomas Jefferson said that religious freedom is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights. Franklin Roosevelt said that religious freedom is a fundamental and essential human freedom. The United States voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975, and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992. Each of these identifies religious freedom as a fundamental human right that includes both belief and behavior, in public and in private, individually and collectively. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act almost unanimously in 1994. It sets a tough standard for allowing government interference with religious freedom and offers this protection for all exercises of religion by all people. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, adherents of different faiths, everyone joined hands on these basic principles. In his 2013 Religious Freedom Day proclamation, President Obama said that religious freedom is an essential part of human dignity. This is the path on which America began, the path Americas founders embraced, the path that all three branches of government have recognized, the path that we have reaffirmed countless times. The burden is on those who believe we should now leave this path. Those who no longer believe that religious freedom is an inalienable right and an essential human freedom should say so. Those who no longer believe that, as our statutes and treaties assert, religious freedom is a fundamental right and a pillar of our nation, should be honest and up front about it. Those who believe that the shifting political priorities of the day trump religious freedom should candidly make their case. In the last week, since the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, we have glimpsed some of the ugliness that is down the path where politics trumps religious freedom. Many of our leaders expressed support and offered thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families. Those expressions were met by some with disdain, ridicule, and scoffing. Reporters, bloggers, activists, and even members of Congress sent the message that thoughts and prayers are really not much of anything and, in any event, are legitimate only if they come from those who want more gun control. Finally, Mr.President, I want to highlight for my colleagues another source of guidance in choosing the future path for religious freedom. In June 1988, the most diverse group of leaders in American history presented the Williamsburg Charter to the nation. Its purpose was to reaffirm religious freedom for all citizens, to set out the place of religious freedom in American public life, and to offer guiding principles for the future. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford and the chairmen of the two political parties signed it. The president of the AFL-CIO and the chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce signed it. Presidents of universities and bar association signed it. Leaders of faith communities including the National Council of Churches and National Association of Evangelicals, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Synagogue Council of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints signed it. What could possibly unite such a disparate group? It would have to be something too general to be useful perhaps something like sunshine or friendship or something so profound that we simply must sit up and pay attention. The first principles of religious freedom affirmed by the Williamsburg Charter are these: First, religious freedom is an inalienable right that is premised upon the inviolable dignity of the human person. It is the foundation of, and is integrally related to, all other rights and freedoms secured by the Constitution. Second, the chief menace to religious liberty today is the expanding power of government control over personal behavior and the institutions of society, when the government acts not so much in deliberate hostility to, but in reckless disregard of, communal belief and personal conscience. Third, limiting religious liberty is allowable only where the State has borne a heavy burden of proof that the limitation is justified not by any ordinary public interest, but by a supreme public necessity and that no less restrictive alternative to limitation exists. These are the principles that should guide our way forward. Religious freedom is inalienable. Religious freedom is threatened when government either directly burdens or fails to accommodate it. Government burdens on religious freedom must be the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose or supreme public necessity. These principles inform proper resolution of the challenges that religious freedom will certainly face ahead. Some are calling for government to revoke or deny such things as tax-exempt status, certifications, or licenses for religious organizations with certain beliefs. I already mentioned how some courts are using anti-discrimination statutes to trump religious freedom. Applying the principles I have discussed would require the government to make the case that such impositions are the least restrictive way to further a supreme public necessity. Another challenge will be in the development, rather than the implementation, of anti-discrimination laws. Applying the appropriate principles requires that such legislation properly accommodate religious freedom. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, includes a religious exemption. I supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the 113th Congress because, in addition to incorporating that exemption, it also prohibited retaliation against those that qualify for the exemption. My state of Utah this year enacted an anti-discrimination statute that similarly included a robust exemption for religious organizations. Earlier this year, however, senators introduced the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity across several areas such as employment, housing, and education. It not only fails to incorporate the existing Title VII religious exemption, it contains no accommodation for religious freedom at all. This is an example of the path that rejects religious freedom as even worthy of consideration. Such legislation should not become law unless it properly accommodates religious freedom. Mr. President, this is a time for choosing. The story of religious freedom is both an inspiring narrative and a cautionary tale. It brings to mind the inscription on a statue fronting the National Archives, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. A heritage of religious freedom that took centuries to build can be dismantled in a fraction of that time. The right path means balance and accommodation; the wrong path means exclusion and suppression. The way forward requires us to choose the right path and to make sure that our actions speak louder than our words.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=94122a15-483e-4d5f-8bcf-5329e60da969,FBI Director: Hatch Bill Will Increase Law Enforcement Efficiency and Accuracy,2015-12-10,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"[Hatchs] bill would help us change the world in a very, very exciting way."" WASHINGTONFBI Director James Comey this week praised a bill introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, as avery excitingtoolthat will enable law enforcement officials to obtain results from DNA samples in criminal investigations. The endorsement came during a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee,of which Senator Hatch is a former chairman and current member. Th[e] authority that's in your bill would help us change the world in a very, very exciting way. [It will] allow us, in booking stations around the country, if someone's arrested, to know instantly or near-instantly whether that person is the rapist who's been on the loose in a particular community before they're released on bail and get away, or to clear somebody, to show that they're not the person. It's very, very exciting. We are very grateful that we're going to have the statutory authorization if that passes to connect those rapid DNA technologies to the national DNA database. Hatchs bill, theRapid DNA Act of 2015, updates current law to allow DNA samples to be processed using Rapid DNA instruments located in booking stations and other approved locations.Rapid DNA instruments are self-contained, fully automated devices that can develop a reference sample profile from a minimally invasive cheek swab and compare the results against existing profiles in less than two hours. The Rapid DNA Actwill enable law enforcement officials to more speedily obtain results to inform decisions about whether an individual in custody should be held or released. The bill further provides that Rapid DNA instruments must be operated in accordance with standards and procedures issued by the FBI in order to ensure the integrity of such instruments and the accuracy of results. For the full transcript on Director Comeys remarks, please clickhere. For more information on theRapid DNA Act of 2015, the need for such legislation, and what the bill does, please clickhere.For the text of the bill, please clickhere.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=e054a336-8338-43a6-8fe6-ac8a83a62ee1,Lee Calls For HUD Zoning Rule To Be Defunded,2015-12-10,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement Thursday, reminding Republican leaders that the upcoming government funding bill is the last opportunity conservatives have to stop the Department of Housing and Urban Developments new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule.Every American should be free to choose where to live, Lee said, and too often federal regulations intended to promote affordable housing and diversity only end up creating the opposite: higher housing prices and fewer choices for everyone.Americans are indeed suffering from high housing prices, Lee continued. But the answer is not a top-down National Zoning Board in Washington.HUDs new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule would leverage the federal governments fraud-ridden Community Development Block Grant program to force local governments to enact new zoning restrictions on residential housing. Zoning restrictions are a proven cause of rising housing costs for all Americans.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ae2b19a3-3b68-41ea-bc0a-195517d9972d,Hatch: Major Education Overhaul Ends Status Quo That Has Failed Students,2015-12-09,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONLawmakers in the U.S.Senate advanced a bill onWednesday to return decision-making power over educationto state and local leaders. After passing in the Senate 85-12, the bill, called the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, willmove to the Presidents desk for his signature,constituting another major bipartisan achievement for the new Republican Senate. The bill, which has attracted the support of every major education reform leader in Utah, fixes many problems caused by the earlier No Child Left Behind education law. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and a cosponsor of this bill, highlighted the role of Utah educators in crafting the legislation. I worked closely with Utah education leaders who understand well the needs of our students and teachers, and Im pleased to have their support in this effort, said Hatch. In all of our work to craft this bill over the last several months, I have worked closely with a multitude of state leaders who support this bill. Returning decision-making authority to the states is what motivated Senator Hatch to work on the bill. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has said that ESSA would represent the largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century. Empowering local leaders, teachers, and parents to make decisions about their education system is the right thing to do, Hatch said. At the same time the bill maintains protections for our most vulnerable students without subjecting states to overbearing federal penalties. The status quo has left too many children behind. This bill makes significant improvements to give Utah students a better chance for a brighter future. Local leaders in Utah have praised ESSA as a major win for a better education system: Brad Smith, Utah State Superintendent: As both a district and state superintendent, it is apparent to me that the largest power grab in the history of American education is the waiver process that has existed under the present incarnation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The results of the waiver process have not been salutary for education, for developments in administrative law, or for the health of our republic. Reforming and revising this deeply flawed statute has and must be the primary work of our federal delegates with respect to education. Dave Buhler, Utah Commissioner of Higher Education The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) will provide necessary tools to state and local education leaders that can help Utah students to graduate from high school ready for college. Similar to our involvement in Governor Herberts review of K-12 education standards, Utahs higher education leaders support efforts that ensure accountable, rigorous results in K-12 that lead to greater success in college, which then ultimately leads to a more successful talent force for the state. -David L. Buhler, Utah Commissioner of Higher Education. Rick Robins, Superintendent of Juab School District: I believe this is the right direction for education in our country by recognizing states rights and educational autonomy yet still protecting the rights of individual students. I greatly appreciate Senator Hatch and his approach. McKell Withers, Superintendent of Salt Lake City School District: We will all benefit from Senator Hatch's thoughtful and reasoned support of the ESSA legislation. Senator Hatch's support for local control and helping all young people succeed is clearly evidenced by his position on ESSA. Having Senator Hatch support ESSA speaks volumes about his advocacy for the families of Utah and the great work that can be done through Congress. Senator Hatch's vote in favor of ESSA provides a unique opportunity to move forward and better serve the young people attending public schools in America. Heidi Matthews, UEA Board of Directors Member and NEA State Director: As a Utah teacher, I am very grateful for the leadership and support my Senator Hatch has for ESSA. Senator Hatch understands that those those closest to the student can best inspire and educate our youth in Utah. No longer burdened by excessive Federal regulation and accountability measures, ESSA initiates a dramatic shift in decision-making authority to those closest to the students. Thank you for championing legislation that begins the process of returning trust and professionalism to the classroom. Education is not a 'one-size-fits-all endeavor and there is nothing 'standard' about any one of my students. I appreciate Senator Hatch's efforts to place students at the forefront of this legislation. I am particularly excited about his championing of educational technology that places an emphasis on the professional development of teachers to ensure that classroom technology is used appropriately and in the most effective manner. Utah State Board of Education: The Utah State Board of Education is supportive of the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to replace the antiquated and federally proscriptive No Child Left Behind Act. We implore all of our Utah congressional delegation to vote in favor of ESSA. Lane Beattie, President and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce: By passing the 'Every Child Succeeds Act' today, Congress has returned more control of education over to Utah where it belongs. This bill is a good step forward in returning control of our education to the states and locals, a goal we will continue to work toward. I applaud the leadership of Utahs senior senator and statesman, Orrin Hatch, for his willingness to act for the benefit of every student in Utah. Senator Hatch worked to include important amendments to the bill that are important to our states economy, such as STEM initiatives and other pathways for increased technology innovation and research. All Utahns want for all kids to reach grade-level literacy and numeracy by the fourth grade. This bill empowers willing states to achieve that goal with improved early learning and high quality preschool experiences. It also invests in our hardworking teachers with more preparation programs, including those designed to improve literacy, civics education, and STEM education. Now more than ever, education is the surest path to economic success. We must move Utah's education rankings back to the top-ten in the nation, and ESSA gets us closer to meeting that goal. Bill Crim, President and CEO of United Way of Salt Lake: United Way of Salt Lake applauds Senator Hatch for his tireless work in building a path forward for students across the country. The Every Student Succeeds Act provides for more local control while continuing to ensure accountability, increases opportunity for ALL students, and makes strong investments in proven programs like community schools, pay-for-success, and Promise Neighborhoods that ensure student success. Utah PTA: We support the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) because: It replaces the dysfunctional No Child Left Behind and many of its federal mandates. This bill will end Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a federal program that incorrectly labeled virtually all Utah schools as failing. This bill puts control over our schools back in the hands of Utahns and decreases federal intrusion. Utah will be able to create their own accountability system, which can take into account how standardized test scores will be used, how teachers are evaluated, and the actions needed to help struggling schools. The bill clearly states that control over standards is the purview of each state, no federal approval of our state standards will be required. Utah will no longer be required to apply for No Child Left Behind waivers, because the waiver process will become null and void. . The bill also includes improvements to Title I that would require districts to conduct family engagement activities that are proven to make a difference for students and schools. Rich Nelson, President and CEO of the Utah Technology Council: As President and CEO of the Utah Technology Council, I have a direct interest in ensuring that the K-12 public education system helps our children grown into educated, talented adults. It is imperative to our workforce that all students have access to talented, empowered teachers, innovative local leaders, and strong state support for their education. I appreciate the Every Student Succeed Acts emphasis on these goals, and applaud it for carefully returning power to the state, while making sure the state must continue to focus on accountability for all students. I am particularly appreciative of Senator Hatchs support of education technology with a focus on professional development in the bill by providing students with a more tailored approach to their learning and balancing teacher and student interaction with the rapid-response nature of technology, we can create classrooms where all students enjoy a personalized learning experience.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ecbfc55c-a4e7-443a-80f3-0e8ea177e24a,"Hatch, Brady, Wyden Announce Deal on Bipartisan Customs Legislation",2015-12-09,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Deal Strengthens Enforcement of U.S. Trade Laws, Promotes Legitimate Trade Facilitation, and Preserves Intellectual Property WASHINGTON Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who serves as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, announced a deal on bipartisan customs legislation on Wednesday alongside House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The bipartisan, bicameral trade legislation, H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection and puts in place effective tools to strengthen trade enforcement at the border and facilitate the efficient movement of legitimate trade and travel. Utah greatly benefits from trade, enjoying an estimated $5 billion trade surplus according to the World Trade Center of Utah. In 2014, Utah sent $12.3 billion of goods to foreign destinations and trade supports 374,000 jobs in the state. After productive negotiations, we were able to produce a strong, bipartisan bill that will help modernize the nations customs system and ensure it is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century global economy, said Hatch, who also serves as Chair of the conference committee. Strong enforcement is a key element in our trade arsenal and thanks to this legislation the Administration will have a number of new tools to hold Americas trading partners accountable. Even more, this measure promotes legitimate trade facilitation and works to preserve one of Americas most important economic assets: intellectual property, helping to prevent counterfeit and illicit goods from entering our nation. Weve put together a good package, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this report across the finish line and signed into law this year. Sen. Hatchs efforts to ensure passage of Trade Promotion Authority earlier this year was lauded by Utah leaders for having a positive impact on the state's economy. The Conference Report for the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 formally authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, facilitates the legitimate trade of goods, and combats violations of U.S. trade laws. Congress is expected to soon vote on the conference report and send it to the Presidents desk to be signed into law. Expanding trade is key to our pro-growth agenda for America, said Brady, who also serves as Vice Chair of the conference committee. Our bipartisan agreement turns the page on impractical, outdated customs and border policies that have hurt American workers and job creators for decades. By replacing inefficiency with innovation, this bill will make it easier for Americans to compete and win in marketplaces around the world. In addition, strong enforcement provisions will also level the playing field and help ensure that other countries follow the same rules. This conference report fulfills our commitment to members of Congress during the discussion of TPA to make sure the President enforces trade agreements, not just negotiates them. This agreement is only one of many pro-growth steps well take in the months ahead to help all Americans prosper and succeed. This enforcement package is about jobs, said Wyden. Too often, our laws and enforcement policies have proven too slow or too weak to stop the trade cheats before jobs are lost. The Leveling the Playing Field Act Congress passed earlier this year helped ensure that workers and businesses harmed by unfair trade have faster access to relief. This conference report, which includes the ENFORCE Act, will help ensure that this relief is effective and that trade cheats cannot evade the consequences of violating our trade laws. The bill we released today represents bipartisan trade enforcement priorities that were years in the making. It takes trade enforcement to a new level to protect workers and businesses in Oregon and around the country. Congress is now on the verge of passing the strongest package of trade enforcement policies in decades. Background: Earlier this year, Senators Hatch and Wyden introduced and reported out bipartisan customs legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. The bill, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, went on to pass the Senate in May by a vote of 78 to 20. On April 21, U.S. Reps. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Charles Boustany (R-La.) introduced customs enforcement legislation, H.R. 1907, which was reported out of the Ways & Means Committee on May 14, as amended. The U.S. House of Representatives acted on the amended customs bill (H.R. 644) on June 12 and cleared the bipartisan measure by a vote of 240 to 190. Hatch and Brady served as the Chair and Vice Chair of the customs conference committee, respectively. In addition to Senator Wyden, customs conferees includes: Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Chuck Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) along with House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-Mich.) and Committee members Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.). To view a copy of the bill text click here. A summary of the Conference Report can be found here. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-votes-to-improve-visa-waiver-program-and-strengthen-our,Rep. Stewart votes to Improve Visa Waiver Program and Strengthen our National Security,2015-12-08,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) voted in favor of the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which addresses national security vulnerabilities that exist under our current Visa Waiver program. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect Americans, Stewart said. This bill fixes holes in our visa waiver program to help prevent terrorists from traveling to the United States. The Visa Waiver Program, which was created in 1986, allows citizens from 38 participating countries to more easily travel to the U.S. for up to 90 days without obtaining a visa. Participating countries are supposed to provide the U.S. intelligence community with critical information needed to ensure those traveling under the Visa Waiver Program are not a threat. Unfortunately, many of these countries are failing to provide the necessary information. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 Europeans have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS, many of whom are from countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program and could travel to the U.S. fairly easily. To address national security vulnerabilities, the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 does the following: Gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to suspend a countrys participation in the visa waiver program if they fail to share counterterrorism information with the U.S. Denies Visa Waiver Program status to those citizens from participating countries that have traveled to certain terrorist hotspots since 2011 Requires all Visa Waiver Program countries use fraud resistant e-passports Allows for the suspension of high-risk countries Closing this visa loophole is only part of the solutionthe President needs to change course and give Americans a coherent strategy for defeating ISIS now, Stewart said. Last month, Rep. Stewart also voted to strengthen the vetting process for Syrian refugees looking to enter the United States.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=4a52134f-7bd2-41f4-8584-f66008e4ad52,VIDEO: Major Education Overhaul Ends Status Quo That Has Failed Students,2015-12-08,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONLawmakers in the U.S.Senate will vote on Wednesday on a bill to return decision-making power over educationto state and local leaders.The bill, called the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, will now move to the Presidents desk for his signature, racking up another major bipartisan achievement for the new Republican Senate. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, spoke out on a video message about the bill:",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a113cece-6bd5-4af6-a8a2-f6fd8a30c69e,"Lee, Klobuchar Hold Hearing on Proposed Inbev, SABMiller Merger",2015-12-08,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, issued the following statements following their hearing on AnheuserBusch Inbevs proposal to purchase SABMiller.""The American beer market is a more than $100 billion business, and delivers a product that, in both its national brand and regional craft brew forms, holds a special place in American culture and hospitality, Lee said. Todays hearing helped answer some of the questions we had about the merger and mitigated many of our concerns about the transaction.""Todays hearing was an opportunity to discuss how merging the worlds two biggest beer producers would impact competition and consumers across the country, Klobuchar said. We examined how the proposed merger would affect the price of a pint as well as the craft brewers who are serving up world class beers across the country. Wholesalers make decisions everyday on what brands to put on their trucks. By working to ensure those decisions are driven by consumer demand and not producer power, we can help competition in the beer industry remain on tap.During the hearing, Klobuchar highlighted the thriving craft brewery industry in Minnesota and pressed the witnesses on how the proposed merger would affect it. There are currently more than 70 breweries in Minnesota, which is more than the entire country had in 1978.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=bbc097c9-6efe-4be0-b0d1-662f9163695c,"Lee Holds Hearing on Proposed Inbev, SABMiller Merger",2015-12-08,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Mike Lee (RUT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, is holding a hearing on AnheuserBusch Inbevs proposal to purchase SABMiller. The hearing is expected to examine how the proposed merger of the worlds two biggest beer producers would impact competition and consumers across the country. Below is Senator Lees opening statement, as prepared for delivery: The subject of todays hearing is the proposed acquisition of SABMiller by Anheuser-Busch InBev, the second largest and largest beer producers in the world, respectively. AB InBev announced the acquisition, for approximately $105 billion, on November 11. Concurrent with that transaction, the parties announced a plan to divest SABMillers stake in MillerCoors to joint venture partner Molson Coors Brewing Company. That stake represents the entirety of SABMillers U.S. presence. As a result, the parties expect their merger to have little if any impact on the American beer market. If true, this will obviate the vast majority of the concerns that traditionally accompany a merger of this size. Other market participants, however, have voiced concerns about AB InBevs influence on distribution channels and the market access of small craft brewers, alleging that AB InBev is seeking greater vertical integration and attempting to exclude craft brewers from the market. As we examine these central questions today and look at the overall state of competition in the beer industry, we must focus that review on how the current competitive dynamics will be impacted by the deal at hand. This analysis must consider both components of the transaction: the acquisition, as well as the divestiture of SABMillers entire U.S. business. Moreover, we will do well to remember that antitrust analysis is extremely fact specific and not driven by mere speculation or suggestion. While legitimate antitrust concerns may exist with respect to AB InBevs relationship with distributors, this hearing is first and foremost about its acquisition of SABMiller. Under the Clayton Act, the relevant inquiry is whether the effects of the deal may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, not whether conditions might be attached to the mergers approval to restructure the market to the liking of the government or private plaintiffs. When, as is the case here, the acquiring party intends to divest the entirety of the acquired companys U.S. business, the transactions effects on competition in American markets are likely to be negligible. The American beer market is a more than $100 billion business, and delivers a product that, in both its national brand and regional craft brew forms, holds a special place in American culture and hospitality. Todays hearing will provide a much needed opportunity to assess competition in the industry as it relates to this historic deal. I look forward to hearing from our esteemed witnesses and the productive discussion their testimony will no doubt inspire.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=64301dbc-08f4-4044-b355-cf8bfa430cda,Factcheck: 8 Myths About the ESSA,2015-12-07,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senates Major Education Overhaul Returns Power to the States The Senate is voting this week on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), an education overhaul that lawmakers argue will correct the shortcomings of No Child Left Behind and will empower states to choose their own standards, assessments, and accountability systems.Member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Hatch, R-Utah, played a leading role in crafting and finalizing the bill because, he says, it meets Utahs demands for a return to state decision-making. The measure passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and is expected to pass in the Senate. Here are some facts Utahns need to know to counter some popular myths about the bill. 1.Myth:""This bill is not an improvement over NoChild Left Behind"" Fact: Education reform leadersboth nationally and in Utah have hailed this bill as a major improvement to No Child Left Behind. Avote against reauthorization is a vote toleave the current system in place.Without reauthorization, No Child Left Behind will remain the law of the land, and states will still be subject to the Secretary of Educations waivers and their unauthorized requirements. The Every Student Succeeds Act finally moves us beyond the outdated NCLB and puts us on a path towards strengthening our Utah's schools. Evidence for how ESSA overcomes No Child Left Behind and the Departments waivers: It ends the Common Core mandate. It ends Adequate Yearly Progress. It ends the failed federal goal of 100% proficiency by 2014, which had unfairly resulted in a failing grade for everyschool in America. It ends the requirement that all schools that dont meet goals for any subgroup of students are automatically identified as failing. It ends the federal school improvement strategies. It ends the highly qualified teacher requirement. It end the teacher evaluation mandate. It ends the trend towards a National School Board. It ends federal test-based accountability. It ends waivers as of August 1, 2016. It restores responsibility and flexibility to states and local school districts. 2. Myth: ""ESSA is about more Federal Intrusion into state authority."" Fact: Decision-making is restored to the local level where it belongs. Since 2010,the federal government, through aNational School Board, has prescribed policies to states and local districts. This billsignificantly reduces the Secretary of Educations authority instate decision-makingandeffectively returns control over educationaldecision making from the federal government and places that responsibility where it belongs:at the local level. What the bill says: Title VIII, Sec. 8527:Nothing in this Actshall be construed to authorize an officer or employee ofthe Federal Government, including through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to mandate, direct, orcontrol a State, local educational agency, or schools curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State orlocal resources, or mandate a State or any subdivisionthereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paidfor under this Act. The Secretary is not authorized or permitted to: Issue non-regulatory guidance that provides a strictly limited or exhaustive list for how to improve accountability systems or purports to be legally binding Require the collection of data beyond existing federal, state, or local reporting requirements Define any term that is inconsistent with or outside the scope of Title I, Part A, which encompasses standards, assessments, and accountability. Issue any rules or regulations that add new requirements or new criteria related to statewide accountability systems that are inconsistent with or outside the scope of Title I, Part A Issue any rules or regulations that are in excess of authority granted to the Secretary under the new law. 3. Myth:ESSA paves the way for more Common Core. Fact:Any type of federal mandate or incentive around Common Core is effectively removed, placing that decision squarely on the shoulders of state officials. This bill ensures that any decision around the standards a state wishes to use Common Core or otherwise is made solely at the state level. What the bill says: TitleI, Sec. 1111: A State shall not be required to submit any standards developed under this subsection to the Secretary for review or approval. The Secretary shall not have the authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted or implemented by a State. Title VIII, Sec. 8526A:No officer or employee of the Federal Government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or controlState, local educational agency, or schools specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments,curricula, or program of instruction developed and implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (includingany requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards developed under the CommonCore State Standards Initiative, any other academicstandards common to a significant number of States, orany assessment, instructional content, or curriculumaligned to such standards), nor shall anything in this Actbe construed to authorize such officer or employee to doso. Title VIII, Sec. 8526A: No officer or employeeof the Federal Government shall condition or incentivizethe receipt of any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, the receipt of any priority or preference under suchgrant, contract, or cooperative agreement, or the receiptof a waiver under section 8401 upon a State, local educational agency, or schools adoption or implementation ofspecific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction developedand implemented to meet the requirements of this Act (including any condition, priority, or preference to adopt theCommon Core State Standards developed under the Common Core State Standards Initiative, any other academicstandards common to a significant number of States, orany assessment, instructional content, or curriculumaligned to such standards). 4. Myth: ""ESSA does little to protect student or teacher data privacy, and even authorizes the sale of student data."" Fact:This bill helps protects the information of Utahs teacher and students and effectively maintains the scope of FERPA. What the bill says: Title I, Sec. 1112:The State educational agency will provide the information described in clauses (ii), (iii), and (vii) of subsection (h)(1)(C) to the public in an easily accessible and user-friendly manner that can be cross-tabulated by, at a minimum, each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English proficiency status, and children with or without disabilities, which(III) is consistent with the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20U.S.C. 1232g, commonly known asthe Family Educational Rights andPrivacy Act of 1974). TitleI -Information collected ordisseminated under this section (including any information collected for or included in the reports described in subsection (h)) shall be collected and disseminated in a manner that protects the privacy ofindividuals consistent with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g,commonly known as the Family Educational Rightsand Privacy Act of 1974) and this Act. Title II, Sec. 2101 - [Programs may include]providing high-quality, personalized professional development that is evidence-based, to the extent the State (in consultation with local educational agencies in the State) deter- mines that such evidence is reasonably avail- able, for teachers, instructional leadership teams, principals, or other school leaders, that is focused on improving teaching and student learning and achievement, including supporting efforts to train teachers, principals, or other school leaders to (ii)use data to improve student achievement and understand how to ensure individual student privacy is protected, asrequired under section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and State and local policies and laws in the use of such data. Representative Messer's amendment to Title II, which Senator Hatch voted in favor of: Supporting and developing efforts to train teachers on the appropriate use of student data to ensure that individual student privacy is protected as required by section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and in accordance with State student privacy laws and local educational agency student privacy and technology use policies. And understanding how to protect individual student privacy in accordance with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the ""Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974"") (20 U.S.C. 123) and State and local policies and laws in the use of such data. 5. Myth: ""ESSA would codify the new $250 million federal pre-school program, creating mission creep in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act."" Fact: This grant program is not a federal mandate for preschool. States would choose to apply for this funding only if they want it.This program would be led by the Department of Health and Human Services, and does not expand authority for the Department of Education. The Preschool Development Grants included in the bill aims to assist states indeveloping, updating, and implementing a strategic plan that encourages collaboration and coordination among existing programs of early childhood care and education, which would increase the effectiveness of money spent on these programs. What the bill says: Title IX, Sec. 9212:The purposes of this section areto assist States to develop, update, or implement a strategic plan that facilitates collaboration and coordination among existing programs of early childhood care and education in a mixed delivery system across the State designed to prepare low-in- come and disadvantaged children to enter kindergarten and to improve transitions from such system into the local educational agency or elementary school that enrolls such children; HeadStart providers, State and local governments, Indiantribes and tribal organizations, private entities (including faith- and community-based entities), andlocal educational agencies, to improve coordination,program quality, and delivery of services; andto maximize parental choice among a mixeddelivery system of early childhood education programproviders. Enzi Amendment: The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the heads of all Federal agencies that administer Federal early childhood education programs, shall conduct an interdepartmental review of all early childhood education programs for children less than 6 years of age in order to develop a plan for the elimination of overlapping programs, as identified by the Government Accountability Offices 2012 annual report; determine if the activities conducted by States using grant funds from preschool development grants under section 9207 have led to better utilization of resources; and make recommendations to Congress for streamlining all such programs. 6. Myth:""ESSA erodes parental rights to opt out of high-pressure state tests by mandating that State accountability systems penalize schools that dont enforce the requirement that 95% take the tests."" Fact: Because this bill devolves the responsibility of education from the federal government to states and local districts, ESSA allows states to have opt-out laws, but must still test 95% of students. However, if a state misses the 95% threshold, states not the federal government determine any and all consequences. What the bill says: Title VIII, Sec. 8025L OPT-OUT PROCESS.A parent of asecondary school student may submit a written request, to the local educational agency, that the students name, address, and telephone list- ing not be released for purposes of paragraph (1) without prior written consent of the parent. Upon receiving such request, the local educational agency may not release the students name, address, and telephone listing for such purposes without the prior written consent of the parent;NOTIFICATION OF OPT-OUT PROCESS.Each local educational agency shall notify the parents of the students served by theagency of the option to make a request described in subparagraph (A). TitleI -Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in eachsubgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I). 7.Myth: ""ESSA allows the success of big money, data mining, federal control, flawed and experimental standards, developmentally and age inappropriate education, with an unknown price tag, loss of parental control, and incessant testing."" /Myth: ""ESEA still requires toxic testing and common standards."" Fact:AYES"" vote on the bill is aYES"" vote for states to write their own standards, without ANY input from the Secretary of Education. For years, Utahns have been asking for the freedom to choose their own standards, their own assessments, and their own accountability systems. This bill allows states to establish systems that work best forschool districts,parents, and, most importantly, students. With its balance of flexibility and transparency, this billmaintains rigorous and important measurements of student academic progress, but allows states and localities to determine how best to measure and evaluate this progress. What the bill says: Title I -(1) CHALLENGING STATE ACADEMIC STANDARDS. (A) IN GENERAL.Each State, in the plan it files under subsection (a), shall provide an assurance that the State has adopted challenging academic content standards and aligned academic achievement standards (referred to in this Act as challenging State academic standards), which achievement standards shall include not less than 3 levels of achievement, that will be used by the State, its local educational agencies, and its schools to carry out this part. A State shall not be required to submit suchchallenging State academic standards to theSecretary. (2) ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.(A) IN GENERAL.Each State plan shalldemonstrate that the State educational agency, in consultation with local educational agencies, has implemented a set of high-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts, and science. The State retains the right to implement such assessments in any other subject chosen by the State. [Assessments should]be aligned with the challengingState academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the students grade level;be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical testing standards, objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge, and skills, and be tests that do not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable in- formation; (E) STATE AUTHORITY.If a State educational agency provides evidence, which is satisfactory to the Secretary, that neither the State educational agency nor any other State government official, agency, or entity has sufficient authority, under State law, to adopt challenging State academic standards, and academic assessments aligned with such standards, which will be applicable to all students enrolled in the States public elementary schools and secondary schools, then the State educational agency may meet the requirements of this sub- section by (i) adopting academic standards and academic assessments that meet the re- quirements of this subsection, on a state- wide basis, and limiting their applicability to students served under this part; or (ii) adopting and implementing poli- cies that ensure that each local educational agency in the State that receives grants under this part will adopt academic con- tent and student academic achievement standards, and academic assessments aligned with such standards, which (I) meet all of the criteria inthis subsection and any regulations regarding such standards and assessments that the Secretary may publish; and (II) are applicable to all stu- dents served by each such local edu- cational agency. 8. Myth: ""This bill is being rushed through Congress only giving members 24 hours to review it before passage."" Fact:This bill has gone through a lengthy and deliberative process, including extensive debate and amendments. Evidence from theSenate Process: Bill introduced to HELP (January/February 2015) HELP Committee Mark Up (April 13-16, 2015) = 22-0 58 amendments considered 29 amendments agreed to Bill introduced to full Senate (April 30, 2015) Senate Floor passage = 8117 (July 16, 2015) 78 amendments considered 65 amendments agreed to Conference Report passage = 381 (November 19, 2015) 9 amendments considered 7 amendments agreed to Conference Report filed (November 30, 2015) Conference Report passes the House = 35964Senate vote on December 8, 2015 House process: Bill introduced (February 3, 2015) Ed an d Workforce Markup (February 11, 2015) House floor passage = 218 213 (July 8, 2015) Conference Report passage = 381 (November 19, 2015 9 amendments considered 7 amendments agreed to Conference Report filed (November 30, 2015) Conference Report passes the House = 35964",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5c906918-aa68-4642-9c2f-c1e26cacbbf4,"Hatch Urges Focus on Facts, Against Knee-Jerk Politics in Wake of San Bernardino Shooting",2015-12-04,2015,2015-12,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 former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a video statement urging the Obama administration to examine the facts rather than take a knee-jerk executive action on gun control. Senator Hatchs full statement: This is a terrible tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims and the community of San Bernardino. However, I think we do victims a tremendous disservice by pretending the solution to the terrible violence in our communities is simply to add more gun laws. I was particularly disappointed that the President came out with a call for greater gun control before the violence had even ended in California yesterday. Such knee-jerk reactions, before we even have an opportunity to assess the facts, suggest that these tragic events are seen by some as opportunities to make a point, and push an agenda that often does not match the reality of circumstances. One thing we know is that these shootings are happening in places with very strict gun laws already in place. California has universal background checks and an assault weapons ban thats been around for over 25 years. Paris, the scene of the terrible attacks just weeks ago, has very strict gun laws. The French have no 2nd amendment, no right to bear arms, but they have now had two terrible mass shootings this year. I understand and share the desire to find solutions to this devastating violence, and I believe the victims of these tragedies deserve an honest discussion of the root causes of why these perpetrators choose to harm others.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=96f18b66-7dbb-475e-829f-f624f65ccb30,"Hatch Praised for Central Role in Passage of First Long-Term Highway Bill in a Decade, Securing Utah Priorities",2015-12-04,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONLateThursday evening the Senate voted 83-16 for the Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the first long-term highway bill to pass Congress in a decade. The billwhich neither raises taxes nor adds to the deficitwill provide state and local leaders with the security and stability they need to plan and complete critical infrastructure projects around the country. The measure is expected to be signed into law shortly. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) spearheaded efforts in Congress to provide funding for a bipartisan multi-year highway bill. Today, he also signed the bill in his capacity as President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Weve heard time and again that a long-term highway bill would only be possible if we included a big tax increase, Hatch said. Yet weve been able to defy the odds and provide much-needed funding for Americas bridges, highways, and roads for the next five years. This marks a watershed moment for our transportation community, who will now have the security and stability they need to plan, implement, and complete critical infrastructure projects. Senator Hatchs role in securing this legislationparticularly his responsibility for paying for the bill without adding to the deficit or raising taxeswas praised by both local and national leaders. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said of Hatch: Workhorsenot showhorseis always how Orrin Hatch conducts himself in the Senate. His leadership and perseverance have been critical to getting the longest highway bill in almost 20 years through the Congress when few thought we could get this done. Heres what local leaders in Utah have said about Senator Hatchs efforts: Andrew Gruber, Executive Director, Wasatch Front Regional Council- ""We applaud Senator Hatch for leading the way in helping to address Utah's transportation needs, as he worked to fund and pass a new long-term transportation bill. The FAST Act will provide critical investments for Utahs Unified Transportation Plan,"" said Wasatch Front Regional Council Executive Director Andrew Gruber. ""Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the country, and this bill will help us keep up with the increasing demands on our roads, bridges, transit and trails, while prudently taking care of our existing infrastructure."" Jerry Benson, Interim President/CEO, Utah Transit Authority- UTA is pleased with the Federal Transportation bill just passed by Congress and signed by President Obama today. Senator Hatch has been a tireless leader and the architect of this bill that, for the first time in a decade, provides a fully funded, five year program that supports critical investments in our public transit system. TJ England, Vice President & General Counsel , C.R. England, Inc- ""I applaud Senator Hatchs role and leadership in working to fund and pass a long-term highway bill. This bill takes important steps to improve trucking safety standards and highway infrastructure. The FAST Act strikes a proper balance in supporting the trucking industry with long-term funding and appropriate safety standards, while also recognizing the important contribution the industry plays in Utah's and the national economy. Because nearly 70% of all freight tonnage moved in the U.S. is transported on trucks, weall benefit fromstrengthened infrastructure anddecreased regulatory burdens placed on interstate commerce. Simply put, this long-term highway bill helps the trucking industrydrive the nations economy forward by providing to the nation all of the products it needs on a daily basis, such as food, medicine, consumer goods, fuel, and manufacturing supplies."" Lane Beattie, President and CEO, SLC Chamber- ""The Utah business community applauds the leadership of Senator Hatch in achieving themonumentalpassage of theFAST Actthatprovidesconsistentinvestment in our transportationinfrastructureandgives our state agencies stability to plan for the future.Additionally, weapplaudthe permit streamlining provisions of the FAST act to accelerate investment and growth in our state's economy. Taken together, these long-standing Chamberprioritieswill provide the certainty to help businesses plan, create jobs, and strengthen Utah's economy.It is in efforts just like this where we see the influence and impact of Senator Hatch's leadership. "" Carlos Braceras, Executive Director, UDOT- ""We appreciate the hard work of Senator Hatch to secure passage of a five-year transportation bill, which will provide Utah with the long-term federal commitment needed to adequately plan and fund projects that will help meet Utah's current and future transportation needs. We were pleased to work with Senator Hatch and his staff to secure policy provisions in the bill that will help UDOT with project delivery, ensuring that Utahns receive the most value for their transportation investment. We are grateful for the Senator's leadership and commitment to making sure that Utah's transportation priorities are appropriately represented and provided for in this significant legislation."" Scott Parsons, President, Staker Parson (Ready-Mized Concrete and Asphalt Company) I applaud Senator Hatchs role and leadership in working to fund and pass a long-term, highway bill. A long-term highway bill is a big win for Utah, our economy, quality of life and the men and women who build our roads and bridges. Over the last decade, multiple short-term highway bill extensions have stifled the construction of Utahs transportation system. The FAST Act will provide the funding certainty needed to plan, design and build our states infrastructure. This bill will enable thousands of Utahns in the construction and manufacturing industry to continue to work on transportation and infrastructure projects with stability and certainty, for years to come. Background Senator Hatch proposed two amendments that will greatly benefit Utah, and have been included in the underlying bill. More background and quotes from Utah supporters follow. Freeway Access Amendment:Clarifies MAP-21 language to grant states the existing authority to review and approve rural and urban interchange access to the Interstate System Reobligation of Funds:Will allow funds that have been obligated from a closed-out project to be reobligated within that same fiscal year to another project in the same category of funds NEPA Delegation Program Improvement:Improves the Surface Transportation ProjectDelivery Program (NEPA Delegation Program) by clarifying the responsibilities of participating states, by limiting the USDOTs information-gathering authority, and making the programs audit process less biased and more efficient. Hatch's Finance Committee is responsible for the financing title of any highway bill that goes through the Senate and usually works within its jurisdiction to identify offsets. Because those resources had been quickly drying up, they had to look elsewhere for this package. After the committee spent weeks examining numerous options and alternatives, Senator Hatch was able to present Sen. McConnell with a list of offsets that, while not necessarily ideal, would allow the Senate to put together a long-term highway bill without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. Following House action on a separate highway bill this fall, Hatch was appointed to serve on the Highway Conference Committee, to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House bills.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=08182185-44b6-4f65-894a-0410282753bb,Lee Letter Asks McConnell Not To Include Federal Land Buying Program in Spending Bill,2015-12-04,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and James Lankford (R-OK) sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Friday, asking him not to include language permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in any end of the year or must-pass legislation. Since its inception 50 years ago, the LWCF has drifted far from its original intent and is in desperate need of reform, the letter reads. Simply reauthorizing the LWCF, or doing so with insubstantial reforms, will only further erode support for the program. There is currently a $19 billion backlog of maintenance projects on existing federal lands, the letter notes, while the LWCF has a $20 billion surplus. But the LWCF hasnt spent a dime on maintenance in over a decade. The letter asks McConnell to allow for a debate about whether a dedicated portion of LWCF funds should be focused toward land the federal government already owns. The letter also asks that land acquisition rules and state allocation of LWCF funds be addressed. You can read a copy of the letter here: Letter Asks McConnell Not To Include Federal Land Buying Program in Spending Bill",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=72e68cd3-2008-46d8-81b2-64cc1c9c772e,Hatch Lauds Senate Passage of First Ever Obamacare Repeal,2015-12-03,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Utah Senator Says, Obamacare has been a disaster for Utah families. Premiums have spiked 22 percent this year alone, and tens of thousands have lost their health insurance with the failure of the Arches Health Plan. I have fought President Obamas big-government health care debacle since its inception. Todays historic action by the Senate is a critical step in ultimately repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with commonsense, patient-centered reform that works for Utahns and all Americans."" WASHINGTON For the first time, the United States Senate today passed a bill repealing President Obamas signature health care law, fulfilling a key promise of the new Republican majority. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the committee charged with overseeing much of the law, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) played a critical role in crafting the measure and praised its passage as an important step toward repealing and replacing Obamacare. Obamacare has been a disaster for Utah families. Premiums have spiked 22 percent this year alone, and tens of thousands have lost their health insurance with the failure of the Arches Health Plan. I have fought President Obamas big-government health care debacle since its inception. Todays historic action by the Senate is a critical step in ultimately repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with commonsense, patient-centered reform that works for Utahns and all Americans."" Earlier this week, Hatchdelivereda floor speech making the case for repealing the Presidents healthcare law. Hatch, a longtime opponent of Obamacare, has fought the Presidents health care law on a variety of fronts. During the debate on its initial passage, Hatch helped to lay the groundwork in the Congressional Record for the court challenge to the unconstitutional individual mandate. To address some of the laws most pernicious elements, the Utah Senator has led legislative efforts to repeal the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the medical device tax. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Hatch has led rigorous oversight of numerous aspects of the law and the botched implementation of its various programs. Along with Senator Richard Burr and Congressman Fred Upton, Hatch has authored a replacement plan for ObamacarethePatient CARE Actthat replaces the Presidents failed policies with commonsense, patient-centered reform. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=86d255ca-201b-417d-b977-af918688485a,Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduces Bill to Improve Processing and Analysis of DNA Samples for Law Enforcement Purposes,2015-12-03,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senate Judiciary Committee members Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal.; and Mike Lee, R-Utah, together with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., introduced legislation today to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to use DNA technology to solve crime and clear individuals from suspicion. Their bill, theRapid DNA Act of 2015, updates federal law to take account of recent developments in DNA technology that allow law enforcement agencies to receive results from DNA samples in as little as two hours. Under current law, DNA samples collected at crime scenes and booking stations must be sent out to crime labs for analysis, a process that can take as long as two months. Recently developed Rapid DNA technology, however, can return results in two hours, enabling law enforcement to determine whether a suspect is wanted for an outstanding crime or has a connection to a crime scene while the suspect is still in custody. TheRapid DNA Act of 2015updates current law to allow DNA samples to be processed using Rapid DNA instruments located in booking stations and other approved locations. This change will enable law enforcement officials to more speedily obtain results to inform decisions about whether an individual in custody should be held or released. The bill further provides that Rapid DNA devices must be operated in accordance with standards and procedures issued by the FBI in order to ensure the integrity of such devices and the accuracy of results. Rapid DNA technology offers the exciting prospect of faster results from DNA samples,Senator Hatch said. Rather than having to wait weeks or even months for results, law enforcement agencies will be able to know within two hours whether a suspect in custody is wanted for other crimes or has a connection to evidence at a crime scene. Rapid DNA technology will also help law enforcement more quickly exclude individuals from suspicion. This bill will enable officials to make faster, better-informed decisions about whether individuals in custody should be held or released and will help to keep dangerous criminals off our streets. Rapid DNA will streamline DNA analysis, allowing our criminal justice system to work more fairly and efficiently,said Senator Lee.It will enable law enforcement to quickly eliminate innocent suspects and focus their investigations; and it will free resources for dedicated labs to analyze the growing back-log of DNA samples and rape kits in order to resolve unsolved crimes. Rapid DNA is an important technology that can help us curb growing DNA backlogs,saidSenator Gillibrand. This bill would give law enforcement the tools they need to identify suspects of violent crimes more quickly and accurately, while better protecting innocent men and women from being wrongfully accused. For more information on theRapid DNA Act of 2015, the need for such legislation, and what the bill does, please clickhere.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=fc459635-53b1-40c4-8e86-676b169042bb,Lee Applauds Senate Passage of Obamacare Repeal Bill,2015-12-03,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT issued the following statement Thursday after the Senate passed an Obamacare repeal bill through reconciliation.""Today the Republican Party took a huge step down the road to repeal Obamacare. I applaud leadership for their steadfast efforts over the past days and weeks, and I commend the Senate Budget Committee for their tireless work in crafting a reconciliation package that doesnt just tinker around Obamacares edges, but lays the ground work for it to be erased from the books altogether.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-introduces-bill-to-de-militarize-federal-regulatory-agenci-0,Rep. Stewart Introduces Bill to De-Militarize Federal Regulatory Agencies,2015-12-02,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) introduced the Regulatory Agency De-militarization (RAD) Act, which halts the trend of federal regulatory agencies developing SWAT-like teams. In recent years, numerous federal regulatory agencies including theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, theFood and Drug Administration,Department of Educationand the Environmental Protection Agency have created their own special law enforcement teams to conduct their own arrests and raids. This is in part a product of the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which gave most Offices of Inspector General arrest and firearm authority. ""It's disturbing to see the stories of federal regulators armed to the teeth and breaking into homes and businesses when there was no reason to think there would be resistance,"" Stewart said. I understand that federal agents must be capable of protecting themselves, but what we have observed goes far beyond providing necessary protection. When there are genuinely dangerous situations involving federal law, thats the job of the Department of Justice, not regulatory agencies like the FDA or the Department of Education. Not only is it overkill, but having these highly-armed units within dozens of agencies is duplicative, costly, heavy handed, dangerous and destroys any sense of trust between citizens and the federal government. TheRADActhas three pieces: Repeals the arrest and firearm authority granted to Offices of Inspectors General in the 2002 Homeland Security Act. Prohibits federal agencies, other than those traditionally tasked with enforcing federal lawsuch as the FBI and U.S.Marshals, from purchasing machine guns, grenades, and other weaponry regulated under the National Firearms Act. Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to write a complete report detailing all federal agencies, including Offices of Inspectors General, with specialized units that receive special tactical or military-style training and that respond to high-risk situations that fall outside the capabilities of regular law enforcement officers. The militarization of agencies is only a symptom of a much deeper and more troubling problem within Washington that the federal government no longer trusts the American people, Stewart said. When all of us feel that we are no longer seen as citizens but as potential dangerous suspects a relationship of trust is impossible. Im working to restore and rebuild trust beginning with this effort to defund paramilitary capabilities within federal regulatory agencies. Specific examples of the militarization of federal regulatory agencies include: In July 2010, a multi-agency taskforce, including armed officers from theFood and Drug Administration, raided a Venice, California organic grocery store suspected of using raw milk. (LA Times, July 10, 2010). In June 2011, armed federal agents with theDepartment of EducationsOIG broke down the door of a Stockton, California home at 6 AM and handcuffed a man suspected of student aid fraud. (Washington Post, June 8, 2011). In July 2013, an armed multi-agency taskforce, including officers from theEnvironmental Protection Agency, theBureau of Land Management,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, theNational Park Service, theFish and Wildlife Serviceraided a small Alaska mining operation suspected of violating the Clean Water Act. (Washington Times, Oct. 11, 2013). On May 7th, 2014, the U.S. Department of Agricultures OIG released asolicitationfor submachine guns. For the full text of the bill,click here. Stewart also introduced this bill in the 113th Congress. Original Co-sponsors of the bill include:Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Virginia Foxx (R-NC.), Sam Graves (R-Mo.), Reid Ribble (R-Wisc.).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=5e2f28b6-14d0-423f-95cf-253664c98dc9,Video: Hatch Fighting to Pass an Obamacare Repeal Bill,2015-12-02,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONLawmakers in the U.S. Senate plan to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, fulfilling one of the key promises the new Republican Majority made to voters in November. As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that oversees the healthcare law, Senator Orrin Hatch co-authored the repeal bill, and has introduced the first plan to replace the Presidents failed health law. He spoke in a video onWednesday aboutthe specific problems Obamacare has created in Utah, as tens of thousands of Utahns have lost their coverage due to failed programs and even more have seen premiums skyrocket.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=8600afd7-e929-4927-8e19-cf460fb9620a,"Senators Hatch, Coons: Trade Secrets bill ready for markup, floor vote",2015-12-02,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Hatch-Coons bill now has support from a bipartisan majority of Judiciary Committee members, backing of industry leaders Theft of trade secrets costs U.S. businesses hundreds of billions each year WASHINGTON After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on the bipartisan, bicameral Defend Trade Secrets Act, authored by U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chris Coons (D-Del), the Senators said that overwhelming, bipartisan committee support and backing of key industry leaders shows that the bill is ready to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee and considered on the Senate floor. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will help combat the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the United States to the theft of corporate trade secrets. The bill is backed by nine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including: Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). ""To safeguard American ingenuity and give companies the protections they deserve, Congress should act now to pass the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which Senator Coons and I authored earlier this year, said Senator Hatch.Not only has our bill attracted overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress; it has also garnered endorsements froma wide-array of industry stakeholderswho know firsthand the economic losses caused by trade secret theft.Both Republicans and Democrats can agree that thisbill is a win for American property rights and innovation.Why wouldnt we move this bill now?"" Todays hearing demonstrated that we need this bill now more than ever as more and more American companies are losing jobs and revenue because they lack the ability to defend their trade secrets under federal civil law, said Senator Coons. Companies in Delaware and across the country who drive innovation and economic growth deserve the same legal protections that other forms of critical intellectual property enjoy. I urge my colleagues to listen to the testimony from today if they have any doubt of the need for this bill that has strong support across a diverse array of industries, and Im determined to work with with Hatch to see this bill across the finish line. At the hearing today, testimony from representatives from a variety of industries, including Delaware-based DuPont, explained the need for a federal private right-of-action to give companies the ability to protect their trade secrets in federal court. Currently, civil trade secret laws vary state-to-state, and state courts can lack the streamlined procedures and remedies necessary to stop a trade secret from being lost forever. Trade secret theft puts American jobs at risk and threaten incentives for continued investment in research and development in the U.S. As an innovator, DuPont depends on intellectual property protectionincluding trade secrets, testified Karen Cochran, Associate General Counsel and Chief IP Counsel, DuPont. Realizing the full potential of our innovation often includes knowledge-building that can span decades. This work generates a range of intellectual property from patents to trade secrets. DuPont recently defended the trade secrets for one of our well-known products, Kevlar. This experience brought about our realization of the importance of S. 1890 and updating trade secret protection and remedies. TheDefend Trade Secrets Actwould: Harmonize U.S. lawbybuilding on theEconomic Espionage Actto create a uniform standard for trade secret misappropriation. Companies will be able to craft one set of nondisclosure policies secure in the knowledge that federal law will protect their trade secrets. Provide for injunctions and damages, to preserve evidence, prevent disclosure, and account for the economic harm to American companies whose trade secrets are stolen without preventing employee mobility. Be consistentwith the remedies provided for other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, which are all covered by federal civil law. The bill issupportedby the Association of Global Automakers, Inc., Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), The Boeing Company, Boston Scientific, BSA | The Software Alliance (BSA), Caterpillar Inc., Corning Incorporated, Eli Lilly and Company, General Electric, Honda, IBM, Illinois Tool Works Inc., Intel, The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), International Fragrance Association, North America, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Micron, National Alliance for Jobs and Innovation (NAJI), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), NIKE, The Procter & Gamble Company, Siemens Corporation, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and United Technologies Corporation.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cb73b0a9-68c6-4b6f-ac27-c9c8b091ad01,House Passes Hatch-Coauthored Education Overhaul,2015-12-02,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a longtime member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, issued the following statement after the House of Representatives passed the Every Student Succeeds Act, the No Child Left Behind replacement that he co-sponsored: For years, Utahns have been asking for the freedom to choose their own standards, their own assessments, and their own accountability systems when educating their children. This billempowers states to establish systems that work best for local schools districts,families, andmost importantlystudents. This legislation balancesflexibility and transparency, maintaining important measurements of student academic progress but allowing states and localities to determine how best todetermine and evaluate this progress.Without this bill, No Child Left Behind will remain the law of the land, and states willremain subject to the Obama administration's waivers and the federal requirements that accompany them.I am pleased that my colleagues in the House have taken this important step, andI look forward to sending this bill to the Presidents desk.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=27a1b790-6cfd-4076-9b7d-ce2553e347ef,"Lee, Klobuchar Announce Hearing Date for SABMiller Acquisition by Anheuser-Busch Inbev",2015-12-02,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, today announced the committee will hold a hearing on Anheuser-Busch Inbevs proposal to purchase SABMiller. The hearing will examine how the proposed merger of the worlds two biggest beer producers would impact competition and consumers across the country. ""This hearing will provide an opportunity to publicly examine the impact of the so-called 'beerhemoth' merger on consumers and for the Antitrust Subcommittee to continue its oversight of potentially anticompetitive market consolidation, Lee said. I look forward to a productive and informative discussion.""This hearing will allow us the opportunity to examine this deal closely, including the proposed divestitures, to see how it will impact the price of beer for consumers and if it will harm the craft brewers that are creating jobs and economic growth across the country, said Klobuchar. We must ensure competition in the $100 billion a year beer industry remains on tap.The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 8 at 10:00 a.m. EST in Dirksen Senate Office Building 226, and will stream here. Witnesses include:Carlos BritoCEO, Anheuser-Busch InBevMark HunterPresident & CEO, Molson CoorsBob PeaseCEO, Brewers AssociationCraig PurserPresident & CEO, National Beer Wholesalers AssociationJ. WilsonMinister of Iowa Beer, Iowa Brewers GuildDiana MossPresident, American Antitrust Institute",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-votes-condemn-epa-guidelines-existing-power-plants,Chaffetz votes to condemn EPA guidelines of existing power plants,2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=446,Chaffetz votes to condemn EPA guidelines of existing power plants,2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Representative Jason Chaffetz today voted in favor of S.J. Res. 24, a joint resolution disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule setting CO2 standards for existing power plants. The Clean Power Plan is the latest in a long series of costly rules by the EPA, which has passed 32 major rules since 2004 costing the economy more than $45 billion annually. “EPA’s unprecedented and, I believe, unlawful regulation could endanger tens of thousands of jobs in Utah and more around the country in a scheme that will have no meaningful impact on global temperatures. More than anything else, the American people are demanding good jobs and a strong economy. Raising the cost of energy, reducing our ability to compete globally, and killing a significant sector of the economy is a giant step in the wrong direction. Congress must stand with the American people against an agency that has grown out of control. ” The Clean Power Plan would impact Utah’s $20.9 billion energy industry, which generates $656 million in state and local revenues and supports as many as 40,000 high paying jobs in the state. With some of the lowest industrial and commercial electricity prices in the nation, Utah has enjoyed a competitive advantage that drives job creation and economic growth. S.J. Res. 24 would prevent EPA from imposing regulatory cap and trade and driving up electricity prices across the country. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1da4e584-26fb-4e67-b809-5cc7e277e80b,House Sends Hatch-Coauthored Climate Rule Repeal to Presidents Desk,2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WashingtonAs President Obama works toward a new international climate pact that will hurt Utah families, the House agreed to two bipartisan resolutions to roll back the EPAs Clean Power Plan rules. The resolutions, cosponsored by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the Senate, express disapproval of the Presidents radical environmental agenda: I believe we need to be good stewards of our environment, but Im afraid that EPA's unlawful regulation would make little to no difference in reducing global emissions all while placing a significant and unnecessary burden on all Americans--especially those in needby increasing domestic energy prices. Such an increase would make America less competitive and leave hard-working families with higher energy bills. Congress is united in telling the President that his radical environmental agenda will not be placed above the welfare of Americas working families. Senator Hatch was a cosponsor of the two resolutions of disapproval that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Senator Hatch also signed a letter to the President reminding him that any binding climate agreement made in Paris must be brought before Congress for approval.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=201b8c4e-41f8-404a-9f62-7b730b5709b4,Hatch Affirms that Religion is Indispensable to Democracy,2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, took to the floor this morning to deliver the seventh in a series of speeches on religious freedom. In previous remarks, Senator Hatch has addressed the importance of religious liberty and its centrality to our nations Founding. He has also detailed the status of religious liberty in public life and the ways this fundamental freedom is under attackboth at home and abroad. Todays speech focused on the numerous benefits religion brings to society. Religion is not simply beneficial to society; it is an indispensable feature of any free government, Hatch said.Democracy needs religion to maintain morality so that freedom can flourish. Without religion, liberty itself would be in danger and democracy would devolve into despotism. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, last week, families across the nation gathered in gratitude to celebrate Thanksgivinga holiday we commemorate in remembrance of our Pilgrim ancestors. With humble appreciation, we venerate the sacrifice of Americas early settlers. We remember their fortitude in leaving family and home to colonize a new wilderness. Facing disease, starvation, and even death, these brave men and women endured tremendous hardships to secure the blessings of religious liberty. Freedom of religionso precious and so prized by our Pilgrim forbearsis the legacy we enjoy as a result of their sacrifice. Today, I wish to honor the Pilgrims legacy by speaking once again on the topic of religious liberty. Over the past several weeks, I have addressed this subject at length. In so doing, I have explained the critical importance of religious freedom and its centrality to our nations Founding. I have also debunked the erroneous notion that religious liberty is a primarily private matter that has little place in the public domain. More recently, I have detailed the many ways freedom of conscience is under attackboth at home and abroad. Mr. President, you might wonder why I have devoted so much time and attention to this vital subject. After all, this is the seventh in a series of speeches I have given on the topic of religious liberty. When there are myriad other issues facing our country, why do I feel so compelled to speak out about religious freedom? Because, Mr. President, no other freedom is so essential to human flourishing and to the future of our nation. Indeed, religion is not only beneficial to society, but also indispensable to democracy. I begin by discussing the most tangible benefits religion brings to society. History provides many examples. Indeed, many of our nations most significant moral and political achievements were grounded in religious teachings and influences. First, consider the role of religion in the formation of our most basic rights. Americas Framers were well versed in both religion and philosophy, and in drafting our Founding documents, they drew inspiration from both sources. Take for example, the unalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independencelife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are a synthesis of both religious and philosophic teachings. The rights themselves stem from the theories of the philosopher, John Locke. But the concept of inalienabilitythe idea that these rights are inviolable because they are endowed [to men] by their Creatoris religious in nature. By invoking the divine and linking our rights to a moral authority that lies above and beyond the state, Americas Founders insulated our freedoms from government abuse. Philosophy helped articulate our fundamental rights, but religion made them unassailable. Thanks to the moral grounding provided by religion, we exercise these rights free from state control. In addition to undergirding the establishment of our God-given rights, religion directly benefitted American society by catalyzing the two greatest social movements in our nations history: abolition and civil rights. Abolition traces its roots to the Second Great Awakening, when preachers such as Charles G. Finney and Lyman Beecher rose to prominence with their revivalist teachings on social justice and equality. Many of the earliest pro-abolition organizations coalesced around Christian evangelical communities in the North. Emancipation was a religious cause first and a political movement second. Most abolitionists were deeply religious themselves, including two of the movements most vocal leaders, William Lloyd Garrison and John Greenleaf Whittier. The Christian doctrine of moral equality was especially crucial in generating the grassroots support that eventually made emancipation possible. Religion was equally influential in guiding the civil rights movement. We speak today of Doctor Martin Luther King, but we sometimes forget that before he was a doctor, he was a reverend. In 1967, the year before his death, Reverend King proclaimed, Before I was a civil rights leader, I was a preacher of the Gospel. This was my first calling and it still remains my greatest commitment.... [A]ll that I do in civil rights I do because I consider it a part of my ministry. Reverend King recruited other religious leaders to his cause when he convened a meeting of more than 60 black ministers in what would eventually become the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. This coalition of evangelical leaders was instrumental in organizing both the Birmingham campaign and the March on Washington. For these ministers and many other men and women who participated in the civil rights movement, religion provided the initial impetus for their advocacy. Today, religion continues to benefit society by contributing to our nations robust philanthropic sector. The importance of charity and helping the poor is nearly universal across all faiths. Every year, religious organizations throughout the United States feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick and afflicted. Without these religious groups, our government welfare system would be overwhelmed. Charitable organizations are irreplaceable because they often step in where the state cannot. Consider some of the largest, most well-respected religious charities in operation today, such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, World Vision, or LDS Humanitarian Services. These organizations are motivated by more than a mere humanitarian impulse; they are driven by a sense of duty, both to God and to man. Every year, they lift millions from despair, offering not only material assistance, but also spiritual direction to help individuals lead more prosperous lives. This is a critical service that no government program could ever provide. Mr. President, it is clear that religion has benefitted our society in several meaningful ways: First, as a result of religious teachings, we have unfettered claim to the natural rights delineated in our nations Founding documents; Second, thanks to religious leaders from John Rankin to Martin Luther King, we freely exercise civil rights today that were once denied millions of Americans; And third, by virtue of religious teachings on charity, we have a humanitarian sector that is unparalleled in its ability to respond to crisis, bless the poor, and lift the needy. But my purpose in speaking today is not merely to recite a list of blessings brought about by religious liberty. Religion is not simply beneficial to society; it is an indispensable feature of any free government. Without religion, liberty itself would be in danger and democracy would devolve into despotism. The nexus between religion and democracy involves the relationship between morality and freedom. Freedom is a double-edged swordit can be used for good or for evil. Statesmen may use freedom to defend justice, but tyrants can abuse it for their own corrupt ends. Morality is necessary to ensure that individuals exercise their freedom responsibly. Religion provides free individuals with the moral education necessary to exercise freedom responsibly. It instills the very virtues that lead to an engaged citizenry, including a concern for others, the ability to discern between right and wrong, and the capacity to look beyond the mere pursuit of present pleasures to the good of society. President George Washington identified the link between morality and religion. According to Washington, Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. For Washington, morality presupposed religion, and both virtues cultivated a healthy society. Perhaps this is why he said that [o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. John Adams was of the same mind. He argued that without religion and morality, our government could not stand because [a]varice, ambition, revenge, and gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Hence his famous observation that the Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. For Washington, Adams, and many others who helped establish our constitutional system of self-government, religion, morality, freedom, and democracy are necessarily interlinked. Without the moral sensibilities that religion can provide, freedom is all too easily corrupted, endangering the very foundation of democracy. Our Founding Fathers were not alone in calling attention to the inextricable connection between religion and a healthy democracy. The renowned political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville offered his own analysis on the subject. After spending several months observing American government and society, Tocqueville wrote his famed Democracy in America in an attempt to explain American political culture to his French counterparts. When Tocqueville published his work in the early 19th century, the United States was a burgeoning democracy and unique as one of the only countries in the world that guaranteed religious liberty to its citizens. At this intersection of democracy and religion, Tocqueville made his most compelling observations. Like Washington and Adams, Tocqueville believed that religion was essential to the success of the American political experiment. Without the moral strictures of religion, the nations democracy would collapse on itself. In Tocquevilles own words, Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot . How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God? In other words, Tocqueville asked how the experiment of self-government could succeed if individuals refuse to submit to any moral authority beyond themselves. By posing this question, Tocqueville argued that democracy needs religion and morality to ensure that citizens exercise their freedom responsibly. Democracy needs religion to help refine the peoples moral sensibility and instill the virtues of good citizenship that make democracy possible in the first place. Tocqueville also taught that democracy needs religion to temper the materialistic impulses of a free-market society. By setting our hopes and desires beyond imminent, temporal concerns and turning our hearts instead toward those in need, religion engenders charitable behavior and saves democracy from its own excesses. In Tocquevilles view, the free exercise of religion is not just a condition of liberal society; it is a precondition for a healthy democracy. Without religion and the moral instruction it provides, freedom falters and democracy all too easily dissolves into tyranny. In this regard, religion is not merely a boon to democracy, but a bulwark against despotism. Laws alone are incapable of instilling order and regulating moral behavior across society. As LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks has observed, Our society is not held together just by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten norms of rightbehavior. Of course, religion and a basic sense of morality help induce such voluntary obedience to the unenforceable that Elder Oaks describes. George Washington conceded that individuals may find morality without religion, but political society needs the spiritual grounding that only religion can provide. In this regard, religion complements law in cultivating a moral citizenry. Both law and religion are necessary to engender good citizenship. As the influence of religion diminishes, governments must enact more laws to fill the void and maintain a moral citizenry. So the consequence of less religious activity is not greater human freedom but greater state control. Religion, then, acts as a check on state power. It cultivates morality so governments dont have to through the cold, impersonal machinery of law. By acting as a shield against state overreach, religion is a friend to both democracy and freedom. Expanding religious freedom empowers democracy. But limiting religious freedom weakens our democratic institutions. In the most extreme case, eliminating religious freedom altogether results in tyranny and human suffering on a massive scale. Consider the catastrophic state of affairs in countries that have explicitly outlawed religion. The Soviet Union, communist China under Mao, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and North Korea are prominent examples. In each of these countries, leaders committed unspeakable atrocities to enforce their own godless morality. In the absence of faith, there was no religious horizon to keep political ambitions within limits. Unencumbered by the moral restraint of religion, dictators systematically killed millions of their own people to establish their own secular vision of heaven on earth. These illustrations of totalitarianism, torture, and genocide demonstrate that a society without religion is a society without freedom. Mr. President, I raise these grievous examples to reiterate my initial point: Religion is central to human prosperity. Society needs religion to keep political ambitions in check. And democracy needs religion to maintain morality so that freedom can flourish. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to consider the state of religious liberty in the United States today. Only by strengthening this fundamental freedom can we secure the future of our own democracy.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=e4ed7651-275c-468f-bcb3-0b24e8a2d2bf,"Hatch: Highway Deal a Watershed Moment for Utah Commuters, Businesses",2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Utah Senator: Weve heard time and again that a long-term highway bill would only be possible if we included a big tax increase. Yet weve been able to defy the odds and provide much-needed funding for Americas bridges, highways, and roads for the next five years. WASHINGTON Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) lauded congressional efforts in producing a final Conference Report for the Fixing Americas Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, bipartisan legislation to fund Americas highway and transit programs for five full years without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Finally, Congress is making significant headway toward implementing the longest highway reauthorization bill in more than 15 years, said Hatch in a speech on the Senate floor. Weve heard time and again that a long-term highway bill would only be possible if we included a big tax increase. Yet weve been able to defy the odds and provide much-needed funding for Americas bridges, highways, and roads for the next five years. This marks a watershed moment for our transportation community, who will now have the security and stability they need to plan, implement, and complete critical infrastructure projects. While weve crossed a major hurdle today our job is not yet over, Hatch continued. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to complete our work and ensure a strong multi-year highway bill is signed into law this year. Senator Hatch proposed two amendments that will greatly benefit Utah, and have been included in the underlying bill. More background and quotes from Utah supporters follow. Freeway Access Amendment: Clarifies MAP-21 language to grant states the existing authority to review and approve rural and urban interchange access to the Interstate System Reobligation of Funds: Will allow funds that have been obligated from a closed-out project to be reobligated within that same fiscal year to another project in the same category of funds NEPA Delegation Program Improvement: Improves the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (NEPA Delegation Program) by clarifying the responsibilities of participating states, by limiting the USDOTs information-gathering authority, and making the programs audit process less biased and more efficient. BACKGROUND: As Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Hatch spearheaded efforts in Congress to provide funding for a bipartisan multi-year highway bill. In July, the Senate passed a long-term highway bill to reauthorize the program for six years. The measure, under Hatchs leadership, funded the programs for a full three years. Following House action on a separate highway bill this fall, Hatch was appointed to serve on the Highway Conference Committee, to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House bills. The Conference Report for the FAST Act reauthorizes and fully funds Americas highway programs for five years. Congress is expected to soon vote on the conference report and send it to the Presidents desk to be signed into law. See What Transportation Leaders In Utah Are Saying About Senator Hatch's Work For Utah Carlos Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation We have worked closely with Senator Hatch and his staff to ensure that his approach and amendments to the Senate transportation bill take into account the most pressing needs facing the state transportation system. While there are many proposals and approaches to address transportation issues facing Utah and the rest of the country, we appreciate the Senators continued focus to increase the flexibility of federal funds apportioned to state and local leaders, and believe it will have the best long-term impact to improve the condition and safety of roads and bridges in our state and across the nation. I applaud his efforts to engage with us and to ensure that Utahs transportation priorities are represented in this major national debate. Lane Beattie, President and CEO, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce ""Senator Hatch, in his role as chairman of the Finance Committee, deserves our praise for his efforts to provide innovative solutions to the transportation problem our nation faces. Deterioration of our nations transportation system impedes economic performance by increasing transportation costs, slowing commerce and commuting and burdening an economy with future transportation investment needs. Our federal transportation program has served the nation well, and in particular, the Beehive State. Without Senator Hatchs partnership, our state would have likely been unable to achieve the major transit and highway expansions of the last decade. Im hopeful through his continued leadership Congress can pass a long-term transportation bill. Michael Allegra, President and CEO, Utah Transit Authority Utahs innovative transportation and transit systems are vital to our booming business sector and growing population. Whether it be light-rail, commuter rail or buses, we have made tremendous strides in safety and efficiency for our community. Senator Hatchs work to ensure stable federal funding over a more reliable period of time will help us continue to lead, bringing great businesses and jobs into Utah, and granting Utahns the best possible access to our state. Utah Transportation Facts 13%- Percentage of Utahs major roads are in poor condition $424 Cost of vehicle maintenance related to poor road conditions (per motorist) 220- Number of fatalities on Utah state highways in 2013 70- Transportation projects at risk in Utah without federal investment What the DRIVE Act does for Utah The FAST Act will provide long-term funding certainty, without which the state would not have access to $1 billion in federal funds. In the first 3 years of the FAST Act, Utah will receive $39,087,642 million in additional growth of the existing programs for freight alone. A long-term transportation funding bill will give Utah the ability to properly plan and prepare for up to 50 years. With a focus on innovation, Utah can better deploy technology to improve the state transportation network. You can find out more about what the FAST Act does for Utah here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a22770bd-3c0c-417b-a93d-a16cfd723f55,Lee offers Tribute to Governor Olene Walker,2015-12-01,2015,2015-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Governor Olene Walker, Utahs 15th Governor, who passed away on Saturday November 28, 2015 at the age of 85. She was the first woman to serve as Utahs Governor, worked as Lieutenant Governor for over 11 years and was a member of the Utah legislature for eight years. Olene Walker will be remembered and revered by Utahns - not because of the many ""firsts"" she pioneered in politics - but for her commitment to leave a legacy of public, and more importantly, private service based on principles that truly last. Olene Walkers life and career were centered in the principles of life-long learning, selfless service and making a difference through civil discourse and meaningful dialogue. Governor Walker believed that the best way to open a mind was to open a book. Immediately upon becoming governor she launched her Read with a Child program focused on getting adults to read with a child for 20 minutes every day. She knew that 20 minutes of daily reading would not only transform children across the state by getting them to read at or above grade-level, but would transport them to magical places, big ideas and brighter futures. Because she became governor at the age of 73, and as a grandmother, I think she also recognized that 20 minutes of reading with a child would inspire the adults in the State of Utah as well. Governor Walker was never far from a book, or a group of children to read to, often choosing her personal favorite from Dr. Seuss, Oh the Places Youll Go. Governor Walker went many places in her public service but sent thousands and thousands of Utah children on adventures never to be forgotten in the wonderful world of good books. She was living proof that books expand the mind and that a mind expanded, especially the mind of a child, could never return to its original state. I was inspired when reading her obituary that the last line, in typical Olene Walker style, stated, In lieu of flowers, please read with a child. Her commitment to the principle of life-long learning is a legacy in and of itself. Governor Walker also understood that it didnt really matter where she served, but how she served. Whether working along side her husband in the family snack business, in the legislature or Governors office, Olene Walker knew that her time on this earth would never be measured by the titles she held but by the impact and influence she had on others. She understood and lived the adage, We are to live our lives not by days, but by deeds, not by seasons, but by service. After leaving the Governors mansion she participated in literacy forums, served an LDS mission with husband in New York and at an age when most people slow down, Olene Walker took on a new and many would say, daunting, challenge of leading dozens of 3-11 year-old children for two hours every Sunday in her LDS congregation. Governor Walker served with confidence, charisma and a charm that was elevating and enlightening. National political players, rural farmers, business executives and children were inspired by her energetic approach and responded to her invitation to engage because they sensed that what they were about to experience was not about Governor Walker it was about them. In an age of ego maniacs and narcissists Olene Walkers example of selfless service in high office is a model for all to follow. Governor Walker also understood the principle that mean-spirited arguments produce little while meaningful dialogue creates much. She was known for her disarming style and her ability to pull people into a conversation. She believed and lived by a motto my offices is committed to that the solution to any, and every problem, begins when someone says, Lets talk about it. Olene Walker challenged political candidates, elected officials of both parties and young people in particular to transcend the talk-radio style bombast and personal attacks in favor of civil, serious and substantive discussions. The Olene S. Walker Institute of Politics and Public Service, at her beloved Weber State University, is a testament to her commitment to make a difference through more meaningful and deeper dialogue. A picture taken of Olene Walker taken inside the Governors mansion contains an interesting image that illuminates much of what Olene Walker was really all about. Resting on a desk in the background of the picture is a statue of a vibrant, energetic, pioneering Brigham Young he is walking swiftly, leading with staff in hand, eyes set on a bright future as he began the audacious endeavor of being the first to establish a lasting society in the tops of the rocky mountains. In the picture, the statue of Brigham Young almost appears to be trying to keep up with Governor Walker. Only Olene Walker could get a trailblazing Brigham to pick up the pace. Governor Walker likewise was a pioneer and trailblazer moving swiftly, leading, with a clear vision of a better society guided by her principles of life-long learning, selfless service and civil dialogue. Her life of many firsts will be celebrated and emulated for generations to come because it was founded on, and inspired by, such principles principles which truly last.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=200ee754-7975-4d48-aba2-2c7617aa3f11,Lee Calls on President Obama to Submit Paris Climate Agreement to Senate,2015-11-30,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement today in reaction to the beginning of the United Nations climate conference in Paris.As world leaders gather in Paris today to begin climate negotiations, I hope President Obama and Secretary Kerry remember the rightful role of Congress and the American people in the agreement-making process, Lee said. ""The founders of our country were rightly concerned about the accumulation of power in one branch of the government, and therefore divided the power of making international agreements between the President and the Senate.""Any agreement that purports to commit the American people to future emissions reductions should be submitted to the Senate for approval as a treaty. Any such agreement that is not submitted to the Senate is at best a short-sighted political stunt that would undermine U.S. credibility.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5932f620-5ebe-4483-abc1-227793605df8,Lee Applauds Implementation of the USA Freedom Act,2015-11-30,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement today, commending the end of the National Security Agencys bulk collection of Americans personal data.Today both the safety and Constitutional rights of American citizens are more secure thanks to the USA Freedom Act, Lee said. Not only did the USA Freedom Act strengthen the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans by ending the bulk collection of personal data, but it also better ensured national security by closing a loophole that prevented the government from tracking foreign terrorists once they entered the United States.Signed into law on June 2, 2015, the USA Freedom Act gave the NSA 180 days to end its domestic bulk data collection program. That 180-day window expired on November 29.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=654fa635-f7a1-41a8-9e8f-0518d0d54ce5,"U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, names Allyson Bell as new Chief of Staff",2015-11-30,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONAfter serving for three years as Senator Lees chief of staff, Boyd Matheson is stepping down and will transition to become a consultant to the senators reelection campaign. Allyson Bell, who has served as Lees administrative director since he took office in 2011,will take over as chief of staff beginning in January.Senator Lee reiterated his confidence in the commitment, talent and direction of his team, saying, For the past three years my team has been doing the hard work and heavy lifting to roll out a conservative reform agenda, based on Utah values, to unite our party and restore the greatness of our nation. This change is a natural extension of our continuous effort to take that agenda around the state and across the country.Senator Lee continued, Boyd Matheson has led strategic initiatives for me going all the way back to the 2010 election. I appreciate his service to my office and the people of Utah.Commenting on his new chief of staff Senator Lee stated, Allyson Bell is respected and admired as a results-driven leader in Utah and in Washington. Her extraordinary execution on major projects, public events and innovative initiatives while serving Michael O. Leavitt in the Governors office, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency have prepared and positioned her perfectly to serve as chief of staff. Her ties to rural Utah and her leadership service to the business community will also help our continued outreach to the people of Utah. I look forward to working with her in this new role. Boyd Matheson stated, Serving as chief of staff for Senator Lee has been an extraordinary honor and privilege. The Senator has assembled a team in Washington and in Utah that is second to none. The State is most fortunate to have him as their Senator. Senator Lee is leading bipartisan efforts in the senate including the USA Freedom Act, much needed criminal justice reform, patent reform, among many others, that make are making a real difference.What Senator Lee is doing for Utah in Washington is exciting and impressive, Allyson Bell said. I have witnessed first hand the way he is transforming the way Washington works and how his policy entrepreneurship is elevating the dialogue and direction of congress. I am determined to help every Utahn see what he is doing for our state.Bio: Allyson BellAllyson Bell began working with Senator Mike Lee during his transition into the Senate after the election of 2010. She has been the office administrative director for the past five years. She has directed education policy for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and Education First and worked as senior vice president at Nahigian Strategies, a public affairs and government relations firm in Washington. Allyson spent 12 years working for Michael O. Leavitt in Utah and Washington DC, with roles including: director of scheduling and advance at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services where she coordinated travel and events in 40 countries and all 50 U.S. States to drive U.S. Health policy; director of advance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; special projects including the Governors Galas and Olympic Events; and campaign manager for Governor Leavitts 2000 reelection Campaign. Allyson also worked as director of operations for Bailey Consulting leading insurance and tort Reform projects and developing political training programs for corporate clients. She is also a veteran of gubernatorial and senate campaigns in Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and Utah.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b6a268ee-116b-433d-9468-6060a785cfe0,"Lee, Klobuchar React to Proposed Pfizer, Allergan Merger",2015-11-24,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) released the following statements today regarding the proposed merger of Pfizer and Allergan.""The mounting consolidation taking place in the healthcare industry is of concern to every American, and the Antitrust Subcommittee has and will continue to exercise close scrutiny of these transactions, Lee said. The proposed acquisition of Allergan by Pfizer raises concerns about overlapping drug portfolios, especially in the cutting edge field of biologics and biosimilars. We expect the enforcement agencies to review these matters thoroughly, as will the Subcommittee.Healthy competition in the pharmaceutical market is necessary to ensuring consumers have access to affordable and innovative prescription drugs, Klobuchar said. I have fought tirelessly to promote competition in the health sector and I believe a merger of this record size needs to be examined carefully. We must be certain that the combination of overlapping drug portfolios and the elimination of a competitor will neither increase drug prices for consumers nor reduce incentives to research and develop life-saving drugs.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-statement-passing-former-salt-lake-county-councilman-randy-horiuchi,Chaffetz Statement on the Passing of Former Salt Lake County Councilman Randy Horiuchi,2015-11-20,2015,2015-11,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. Pennsylvania, 18th The Honorable Tim Murphy resigned from the 115th Congress on October 21, 2017. Utah, 3rd The Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned from the 115th Congress on June 30, 2017. The Honorable John R. Curtis was elected November 7, 2017, in special election. Representative Curtis was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on November 13, 2017. Kansas, 4th The Honorable Mike Pompeo resigned from the 115th Congress on January 23, 2017. The Honorable Ron Estes was elected April 11, 2017, in special election. Representative Estes was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on April 25, 2017. Montana, At Large The Honorable Ryan K. Zinke resigned from the 115th Congress on March 1, 2017. The Honorable Greg Gianforte was elected May 25, 2017, in special election. Representative Gianforte was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 21, 2017. South Carolina, 5th The Honorable Mick Mulvaney resigned from the 115th Congress on February 16, 2017. The Honorable Ralph Norman was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Norman was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. Georgia, 6th The Honorable Tom Price resigned from the 115th Congress on February 10, 2017. The Honorable Karen C. Handel was elected June 20, 2017, in special election. Representative Handel was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on June 26, 2017. California, 34th The Honorable Xavier Becerra resigned from the 115th Congress on January 24, 2017. The Honorable Jimmy Gomez was elected June 6, 2017, in special election. Representative Gomez was added to the rolls of the House upon executing the oath of office on July 11, 2017.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-applauds-passage-fed-oversight-legislation,Chaffetz Applauds Passage of Fed Oversight Legislation,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=444,Chaffetz Applauds Passage of Fed Oversight Legislation,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Today Congressman Jason Chaffetz released the following statement after voting in favor of H.R. 3189, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act. This bill enacts reforms that require more openness and transparency at the Federal Reserve and includes audit provision language previously found in Audit the Fed bill. ""Openness and transparency at the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have co-sponsored and supported a legislative fix since my first year in Congress. I am pleased to see audit provisions included with other important reforms in this bill that provide much needed oversight of the Federal Reserve. “ ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=445,Chaffetz Statement on the Passing of Former Salt Lake County Councilman Randy Horiuchi,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Chaffetz today released the following statement on the passing of long-time Salt Lake County Commissioner and Councilman Randy Horiuchi: ""Randy Horiuchi left an indelible mark on Salt Lake County during his decades of public service. With his passion for politics and ever-present wit, he was able to build bridges that spanned the political spectrum. Julie and I offer our sincere condolences to the Horiuchi family.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=8593e6c8-496f-4606-8898-3363dfdfe43e,"In Sixth Speech in Series, Hatch Speaks on Threats to Religious Liberty Abroad",2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took to the Senate floor to deliver the sixth in a series of speeches on religious liberty Thursday afternoon. Senator Hatch has previously delivered speeches on: 1. the basic principles of religious liberty; 2. the history of religious liberty; 3. the status and substance of religious liberty; 4. the balance between faith and public life; and 5. contemporary threats to religious liberty Thursday's speech focused on threats to religious liberty abroad. After detailing the many ways religious liberty is under attack across the world, Senator Hatch issued a call to action by calling on Congress to support policies that strengthen religious liberty protections overseas. Equally essential to protecting religious liberty abroad is a commitment to defend it here at home. Through our robust exercise of religious liberty, we offer hope to people beyond our bordersmen and women suffering under the yoke of oppression who look to our country for sanctuary. As our nation strives to be an example of the full meaning and implementation of religious freedom, we can offer greater hope to those persecuted for their religious beliefs. And by addressing threats to freedom of conscience here at home, we can strengthen and beautify our City on a Hill, building upon the foundations laid for us by our pilgrim forbears, so that the light of our nation might shine before all men. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again on the topic of religious liberty. This is the sixth in a series of addresses I have given on this critical subject. In my previous remarks, I have discussed why religious liberty matters and why it deserves special protection from government interference. I have also detailed the history of religious liberty in the United States and its centrality to our nations Founding. Likewise, I have debunked the erroneous notion that religion is a purely private matter that has no place in the public domain. Last week, I discussed the status of religious liberty in contemporary American life. I argued that, in ways that are both alarming and unprecedented, religious liberty is under attack here in the United States. Today, I turn my attention beyond our borders to examine the status of religious liberty abroad. Again, my argument is straightforward: across the world, religious liberty is under serious attack. My observations are particularly relevant as we approach Thanksgiving. Our nation commemorates this special holiday in remembrance of our pilgrim ancestors who fled persecution in search of religious freedom. These brave men and women sailed uncharted waters and settled strange lands in order to build a society where they could practice their religion free from state interference. Their earnest efforts precipitated not only the establishment of a new colony, but the birth of a nation committed to the principles of religious pluralism. For Americas earliest settlers, this land stood as a symbol of refugea haven from the storm of religious oppression that lingered over Europe. Centuries later, victims of religious persecution across the world still look to our shores for sanctuary. They see America as John Winthrop once described it: As a City Upon a Hilla light that reaches across the oceans, giving hope to those still living in the shadows of religious intolerance. Mr. President, today our world needs that light more than ever. Nearly four centuries after the pilgrims made landfall at Plymouth Rock, the state of religious liberty across the world is increasingly precarious. From brutal crackdowns on religious minorities in central Asia to a growing wave of anti-Semitism in Europe; from the violent campaigns of Boko Haram in Africa to the nefarious specter of ISIS in the Middle Eastreligious liberty is under attack like never before. Despite the rapid advance of democracy over the last century, the blessings of religious freedom are still inaccessible to a majority of the worlds population. In fact, a recent Pew study finds that three-quarters of the global population lives in countries with high-government restrictions and significant hostilities surrounding religion. Think about that. In spite of the substantial progress our own society has made in securing individual rights and enshrining religious liberty in law, there are still billions of people across the world who are unable to exercise their religion freely and fully. There are still billions of individuals living under despotic regimes that not only fail to protect people from persecution, but that actively constrain the conscience of citizens through law. There are still billions of people who understand religious liberty as little more than a philosophical concept, much less a reality. Mr. President, I wish I could offer these people hope. I wish I could say that the gradual march of progress will part the waters of religious intolerance, paving a clear path forward for religious liberty. But reality restrains my optimism. Around the world, hostility to religion is increasing. Religious liberty abroad faces opposition from two sources: states and non-state actors. While I would like to relate an exhaustive account of the war being waged on both fronts, time permits me to highlight only the most grievous examples of persecution. I begin with state-sponsored acts of religious oppression. Far from being a relic of the past, government persecution of religious minorities is alive and well. First, consider the state of religious liberty in Asia: China is perhaps the worlds leading instigator of religious persecution. Last year, in a nearly unprecedented crackdown on religious expression, the Chinese government bulldozed or removed crosses from more than 400 Protestant and Catholic churches. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, many experts have characterized this growing tide of oppression against Christians in China as the most egregious and persistent since the Cultural Revolution. And Christian denominations arent the only groups facing oppression. Members of all faiths, including Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists, face arrests, fines, denials of justice, [and] lengthy prison sentences because of their religious beliefs. Practitioners of Falun Gong experience the most intense persecution. Sixteen years ago, the Chinese government imposed an outright ban on the practice of Falun Gong. Since that time, the government has imprisoned believers in forced-labor camps, subjecting them to psychiatric experiments and other heinous forms of torture. The government has even executed practitioners of Falun Gong, mutilating their bodies and harvesting their organs for profit. Our nation can no longer turn a blind eye to these atrocities. Nor can we ignore the plight of religious prisoners in North Korea, where Kim Jong-un has incarcerated thousands of his own citizens for their religious beliefs. These men and women are separated from their families and forced to work in concentration camps. While the government punishes followers of any faith, the countrys Christians face the greatest persecution. If caught practicing their religion, Christians face imprisonment without trial. Many face execution. In southeast Asia, Myanmar is responsible for propagating religious bigotry, not so much by what it does, but by what it doesnt do. Across the country, religious and ethnic minorities face increasing persecution at the hands of the Buddhist majority. Rather than intervene to protect these vulnerable groups from mistreatment, the Myanmar government has stood idly by as an observer to the violence. As a result of the governments inaction, 140,000 Muslims and at least 100,000 Christians have been internally displaced. In Africa and the Middle East, the situation is just as bleak: In Iran, despite President Rouhanis promise to extend greater protections to religious minorities, the number of individuals detained because of their religious beliefs has actually increased during his term. Bahais, Christians, Jews, and Sunni Muslims throughout the country face perpetual persecution, arrest, beating, and imprisonment. Some are even executed for their beliefs. And of course, there is perhaps no government on earth more vocal in its anti-Semitism than Iran. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the state prohibits all non-Muslim public places of worship. Any citizen who dares question the governments repressive policies is likely to face charges of apostasy, blasphemy, and even sorcerya crime punishable by death. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad has abandoned all appearances of religious liberty by deliberately targeting Sunni Muslim civilians in a bloody civil war. As he massacres his own people, he does so on the basis of their religious affiliation. In Pakistan, the government consistently fails to protect its own citizens from religiously motivated violence. And the courts exploit repressive anti-blasphemy laws to prosecute religious minorities. Egypts courts convict and imprison citizens under the same pretext. In Sudan, the government harasses its minority Christian population and subjects Muslims and non-Muslims alike to the punishments of Sharia law. The state even executes citizens who convert from Islam to another religion. Even in Europe, religious liberty is under attack, albeit in more subtle ways: Take, for example, Switzerland, where a constitutional amendment placed a countrywide ban on the construction of minaretsa widely recognized symbol of Muslim prayer and devotion. In another blow to Europes Islamic population, France recently outlawed the wearing of burqas and niqabs in public. When a Muslim woman appealed the ban to the European Court of Human Rights, the court upheld the law. Mr. President, what I have related here today is only a small sampling of the manifold abuses taking place around the world. If I were to relate every instance of state-sponsored religious bigotry abroad, I would be speaking for days. And none of this is to mention the war against freedom being waged by non-state actors. In the past decade, we have witnessed an unprecedented rise of terrorist groups and other criminal organizations seeking to eradicate religious liberty altogether. Take, for example, the rise of Boko Haram in the Lake Chad region of Africa. This Islamic terrorist organization made headlines last year after kidnapping over 276 Nigerian schoolgirls. According to the Human Rights Watch, Boko Haram has since forced these young girls to convert to Islam and undergo severe physical and psychological torture. Many of these young women have been subjected to forced labor, and others have been raped while in captivity. Boko Harams central mission is to annihilate all Western social and political activities, including any religion that isnt Islam. In its fight against religious freedom and other Western values, the group has conducted indiscriminate attacks on civilians and has even used children as suicide bombers. The brutality of Boko Haram is only surpassed by the barbarism of ISIS. Far from being the jayvee team President Obama once described, ISIS has proven to be perhaps the most formidable terrorist network in operation today. I fear that too many underestimate the threat ISIS poses to religious freedom. This is an organization whose very raison d'tre is to establish a global Islamic caliphate and usher in the apocalypse. As Islamic State militants carry out their mission, religious liberty is often the first casualty. In the barren world ISIS envisions, there is no room for dissent: either convert or be killed. Yazidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims throughout the Middle East have been confronted with this impossible ultimatum. Refusal to give in to the Islamic States demands has resulted in mass executions, extrajudicial killings, kidnapping of civilians, forced displacement, the killing and maiming of children, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. The savagery of ISIS has even gone viral as the group posts videos of grisly beheadings on the Internet. In almost every case, captors target their victims on the basis of religion. As we are all too aware, the cruelty of ISIS is not confined to the Middle East. Just last week, three teams of ISIS militants carried out terrorist assaults throughout Paris, detonating suicide bombs at a soccer stadium and opening fire on innocent civilians at a concert hall. The violence injured at least 350 innocent bystanders and claimed 129 lives in what is considered the worst terrorist attack on French soil in the nations history. Mr. President, we could call these attacks senseless acts of violence because thats exactly what they appear to be, both in the scope of their brutality and in the scale of their indiscrimination. But I fear that dismissing these attacks as senseless too often hides from our view the radical rationale that motivates such violence. ISIS does not kill merely to feed an insatiable bloodlust; it kills because it wants to terrorize, shock, and intimidate other civilizations into submission. It kills because it wants to impose on all people a narrow-minded, medieval ideology of Islamone that would rob us of our religious freedom and other fundamental rights. Sadly, ISIS is not alone in its animus toward religious freedom. Nearly every terrorist organization that has vowed our destructionbe it Al-qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollahseeks to strip us not only of our sense of security, but also of the fundamental freedoms that make religious pluralism possible. Mr. President, if we are committed to defending religious liberty overseas, we must confront the growing menace of Islamic extremism. And we must challenge those nations that engender religious intolerance through law. Today, by calling attention to the suffering of religious peoples throughout the world, I have demonstrated clearly and without question that religious liberty faces growing hostility abroadfrom both state and non-state actors alike. From the heavy hand of government to the violent campaigns of terrorist organizations around the globe, the right to worship according to the dictates of ones own conscience is under relentless attack. With a fuller understanding of the threats facing religious liberty, the question now becomes: What is to be done? If religious liberty is under attack abroad, what can our nation do to protect this precious freedom now and in the future? First, we must recognize that protecting religious freedom abroad is not just a question of moral principle; its a matter of national security. Often violations of religious liberty abroad threaten our own safety at home. As a case in point, consider the role of religious intolerance in the Syrian civil war. Bashar al-Assad quickly disposed of religious freedom when he began deliberately targeting Sunni Muslims, murdering thousands of citizens on the basis of their religion. His brutal actions precipitated the formation of ISISan organization hell-bent on destroying other religions and entire civilizations in the name of Islam. As ISIS gained in strength, it began to export its extreme ideology abroad, triggering several attacks throughout the world, including last weeks coordinated assaults in Paris. Now, ISIS poses a formidable threat to the United States and all of our allies. Assads blatant disregard for religious liberty not only escalated violence in the region, but also catalyzed the formation of ISIS. As a result, the world is less safe. Given the obvious nexus between protecting religious liberty and strengthening global security, I agree with the following assessment from the United States Commission on International Freedom: In the long run, there is only one permanent guarantor of the safety, security, and survival of the persecuted and the vulnerable. It is the full recognition of religious freedom as a sacred human right which every nation, government, and individual must fully support and no nation, government, or individual must ever violate. If we are committed to bolstering the security of other nations, then we must be equally devoted to strengthening religious liberty abroad. At the forefront of our foreign policy should be a commitment to defend and advance religious liberty in countries where it is under attack. We should also be prepared to reevaluate our relationship with governments that fail to make religious liberty protections a priority. Congress took concrete steps to prioritize religious freedom as a foreign policy objective when it passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This law established an Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom. The Ambassador oversees the State Departments Office of International Religious Freedom, which monitors discrimination against people of faith and publishes an annual country-by-country report on the status of religious freedom abroad. This historic legislation also created the United States Commission on International Religious Freedoman independent, bipartisan organization that closely follows religious persecution in other countries and offers recommendations to the executive branch and Congress on how best to promote religious freedom overseas. As one of the only countries in the world to make religious liberty an explicit foreign policy objective, our nation is unique in its commitment to this preeminent freedom. As a legislative body, Congress can renew that commitment by continuing to support the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act. The future of religious liberty overseas depends on our willingness to strengthen it here in Congress. Lastly, if we are committed to protecting religious liberty abroad, we must be ready to defend it here at home. At the beginning of my remarks, I recalled the imagery of John Winthrops City on a Hill. Throughout our nations history, several prominent public figures have invoked Winthrops allusion to capture a simple truth: Americas special freedoms make her a light to other nations. Through our robust exercise of religious liberty, we offer hope to people beyond our bordersmen and women suffering under the yoke of oppression who look to our country for sanctuary. As our nation strives to be an example of the full meaning and implementation of religious freedom, we can offer greater hope to those persecuted for their religious beliefs. And by addressing threats to freedom of conscience here at homeincluding the attacks on religious liberty that I detailed in previous remarkswe can strengthen and beautify our City on a Hill, building upon the foundations laid for us by our pilgrim forbears, so that the light of our nation might shine before all men. Mr. President, with this call to action, I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c4a0c547-01ad-4c2d-b93c-e2bb0e4ced21,Hatch Statement on Committee Passage of Stem Cell Research Reauthorization,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, and member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee issued the following statement after the committee passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015, which he sponsored. I am pleased the HELP Committee has passed this important, life-saving bill, and I thank Senators Reed, Burr, and Franken for joining me as cosponsors of the legislation. This reauthorization will advance the important work of the bone marrow and cord blood programsto promote new discoveries within the fields of cellular therapy and regenerative medicine.Enacting this billwill also reaffirm the commitment thatCongress made three decades ago to help patients with blood cancers and other life-threatening diseases byincreasing access to life-saving transplants. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015 will reauthorize for another five years both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program known simply as the Program - and the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI). The Program and the NCBI provide access to life-saving treatments for serious conditions and disease such as leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. Hatch has sponsored the bill twice previously in 2010 and 2005. The 2005 law created the National Cord Blood Inventory.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=ffdbce00-4ca7-424b-aeea-ef56db93752c,Hatch Sponsors Resolution to Increase Adoption Awareness,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.The United States Senate has unanimously adopted a resolution recognizing November as National Adoption Month and November 21 as National Adoption Day.Senator Hatch, an original co-sponsor of this resolution, issued the following statement: This resolution states what we all know in our hearts, that every child should have a permanent and loving family. Hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system in the United States, and millions more around the world, do not have a family they can call their own. Those who open their homes and families to these children are examples of love and sacrifice and deserve respect and support. I hope that more people will consider adoption and that the United States will do everything possible to facilitate opportunities for children around the world to find their permanent and loving home in America.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f82dc11f-4a33-4078-ab86-25b9b4ac15d9,Lee Introduces Resolution Calling on President Obama to Submit Climate Deal to Senate as A Treaty,2015-11-19,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a resolution, S. Con. Res. 25, calling on President Obama to seek the Senates advice and consent on whatever climate agreement is produced in Paris, as required by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The resolution has 30 original cosponsors. The statements made by the Executive Branch to the Senate during Senate consideration of the Convention [i.e., the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] and set forth in Executive Report 10255 remain valid and in force, the resolution reads; and, accordingly, any agreement adopted at COP21 [i.e., the Paris climate conference] containing targets and timetables [] must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent pursuant to Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. A companion resolution will be introduced in the House by Representatives Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Bill Flores (R-TX). At a recent speech at the Heritage Foundation, Senator Lee addressed the Obama administrations claims that the Paris climate agreement should not be considered a treaty. The speech can be read here. The Paris climate deal is also expected to obligate the United States to transfer billions of dollars to developing nations in future years, well past Obamas term in the White House. Senator Lee explains the problems with President Obamas climate finance pledges in an essay at National Review Online, which can be read here. You can read a full copy of Senate Resolution 25 here: Paris Climate Change Agreement Needs Ratification by Senate",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-chris-stewart-on-msnbc-we-cant-adequately-vet-syrian-refugees,Rep. Chris Stewart on MSNBC: "We Can't Adequately Vet Syrian Refugees",2015-11-18,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) joined Brian Williams on MSNBC to discuss why the U.S. cant adequately vetSyrian refugees and how we can defeat ISIS. Watchhere.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=71b80fb6-fd31-4ab5-9c63-63d57152050e,"Senators Hatch, Lee, Cruz, Perdue, and Paul Introduce Bill to Strengthen Criminal Intent Protections",2015-11-18,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senate Judiciary Committee members Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and David Perdue, R-Ga., together with Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation today to strengthen criminal intent protections in federal law. Their bill, theMens Rea Reform Act of 2015, would set a default intent standard for all criminal laws and regulations that lack such a standard. It would ensure that courts and creative prosecutors do not take the absence of a criminal intent standard to mean that the government can obtain a conviction without any proof a guilty mind. The House Judiciary Committee introduced its own version of a defaultmens reabill earlier this week. Criminal intent requirements are an essential bulwark against unjust prosecution and incarceration of morally innocent actors, SenatorHatch said.Requiring proof of criminal intent protects individuals from prison time or other criminal penalties for accidental conduct or for activitiesthey didnt know were wrong. Unfortunately, in recent years Congress and federal agencies have increasingly created crimes with vague or unclear criminal intent requirements or with no criminal intent requirement at all. This bill will help correct that problem and ensure that honest, hard-working Americans are not swept up in the criminal justice system for doing things a reasonable person would not know were wrong. The federal code is sprinkled with criminal laws that either do not specify an intent requirement or do not include a sufficient intent requirement, and the federal register contains many similarly deficient regulations,Senator Lee said. We must take account of the lack of sufficient intent requirements in federal laws and regulations and ensure that innocent persons are not held criminally liable for otherwise innocent conduct, except where Congress explicitly desires. I have long urged Congress to get the law right and to provide for a defaultmens reastandard both for those statutes and regulations that do not already specify such a standard and for those statutes and regulations that may be enacted in the future without specifying amens reastandard, and this bill proposes to do exactly that. Sen. Hatchs Mens Rea Reform Act deserves to become law, said Senator Cruz. ""While Congress is spending a lot of time talking about criminal justice reform, it is ignoring one of the biggest flaws in our modern criminal justice system: the federal government can send American men and women to prison without demonstrating criminal intent. The Mens Rea Reform Act needs to be enacted to protect the rights of all Americans and should be a part of other criminal justice reform efforts. Todays bill is an essential tool in combatting the problem of overcriminalization at the federal level, said Senator Perdue. Far too many federal laws and regulations on the books today have no mens rea requirement whatsoever and have been used to target innocent Americans who did not intend to break the law.This bill helps protect American citizens and needs to be part of our overall effort to improve our criminal justice system. ""No one who is taught that you are innocent until proven guilty in American could imagine we put people in jail for crimes they did not even know they were committing, yet that is exactly what the federal government does. We have to put an end to that practice, and this bill is an important step in that direction, Senator Paul said. To learn more about the need for defaultmens realegislation and the problem of overcriminalization generally, pleaseclick here for an address Senator Hatch delivered on the issue.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=86d8f0ea-399d-411a-8188-d2b36b116543,DOJ ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR MURPHY-HATCH JUDICIAL REDRESS ACT,2015-11-18,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Bipartisan bill would enhance law enforcement cooperation & transatlantic relations WASHINGTON Today, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)and U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) applauded the U.S. Department of Justices (DOJ) announcement of support for the Murphy-Hatch Judicial Redress Act of 2015. The bipartisan bill will promote increased cooperation among law enforcement and boost transatlantic relations. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch also voiced her support for the bill during a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee DOJ oversight hearing earlier this week. The Judicial Redress Act would extend some of the core benefits enjoyed by Americans under the Privacy Act of 1974 to European allies and provide a clear signal that the U.S. values the transatlantic relationship and seeks to fully rebuild trust in U.S.-EU data flows. This bill is essential to the Umbrella Agreement, the critical law enforcement information sharing agreement between the U.S. and Europe. Last month, the European Court of Justice ruled to strike down the Safe Harbor agreement between the United States and the European Union (EU) due to a lack of privacy protections for EU citizens. The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the Judicial Redress Act. The U.S. Senate must pass the legislation before it is signed into law. Murphy said, Just days ago, one of our closest allies faced the worst-ever terrorist attack in their nations history. As we confront ongoing national security threats, we must cement the vital U.S.-EU law enforcement efforts we rely on to keep Americans safe that means passing the Judicial Redress Act into law. Murphy continued, Safeguarding our national security is the absolute number one priority. But until the Senate passes this bill into law, the gaps in information sharing addressed by our Judicial Redress Act stand between us and a safer America. I strongly urge the Senate to follow the actions of the House and the recommendation of the DOJ as soon as possible, and pass this bill into law. Our national security depends on it. Hatch said, With unanimous support in the House, and strong support from the administration, its time for the Senate to act on the Judicial Redress Act. Many countries in the European Union provide data protection rights to Americans on European soil, and European citizens should have access to the core benefits of the Privacy Act when in the United States. Especially given the European Court of Justices recent safe harbor decision, Congress should provide assurances to our European allies that America respects data privacy.The Judicial Redress Act is sound policy, andwe cannot afford to wait any longer. A PDF of the letter is available online here. The full text of the letter is below: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy: This letter provides the Department of Justice's views in support of S.1600 and H.R. 1428, the ""Judicial Redress Act of 2015."" The legislation is critical to ensuring continued strong law enforcement cooperation between the United States and the European Union (EU), and we appreciate the opportunity to work with Committee staff on these important matters. For many years, the EU and many of its Member States have raised significant concerns regarding the fact that the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) applies to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (LPRs), but not to foreign citizens who are not LPRs. In contrast, U.S. citizens have rights under EU and Member State data protection laws to seek access, amendment and either administrative or judicial redress with respect to the processing or use of their data. The absence of a broader right of action with respect to U.S. government privacy violations has remained a significant point of friction. In 2011, the United States and EU commenced negotiations on a Data Protection and Privacy Agreement (DPP A). The agreement is intended to establish mutual recognition of EU and U.S. data privacy frameworks and clarify the application of U.S. and EU data protection measures to existing law enforcement cooperation agreements. The United States entered into these negotiations in order to ensure that our robust information sharing with the EU for law enforcement purposes would continue. During the course of the negotiations, the European Commission and Parliament both made it clear that the EU would sign the DPP A only if EU citizens are granted the right to seek redress in U.S. courts for major privacy violations related to personal information covered by the DPP A. Without an Act of Congress, the United States cannot provide EU citizens access to U.S. federal courts. Accordingly, enactment of the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 is essential to putting the United States and the EU in a position to conclude the DPPA. The negative consequences that will result from failure to conclude the DPP A will include diminished law enforcement cooperation. If the DPPA is not concluded, it is likely that an increasing amount of law enforcement cooperation will be channeled into formal mutual legal assistance instead of through other channels of cooperation, including between U.S. and EU Member State law enforcement agencies. The diminishrnent of lawful information sharing options and diversion to a single channel would dramatically reduce cooperation and significantly hinder counterterrorism efforts, in addition to the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of other criminal offenses. Additionally, the EU is drafting a new data protection directive, in which international transfers of law enforcement information concerning EU citizens will be severely restricted unless the recipient country meets certain privacy standards, including the right for EU citizens to seek judicial redress for major privacy violations in the recipient country's courts. In the event the EU impedes the transfer of law enforcement information, the ability to seek redress could be denied or withdrawn. In sum, this legislation is critical to ensuring continued strong law enforcement cooperation between the United States and the EU. We fully support S.1600 and H.R. 1428, and we stand ready to work with the Committee on any issues relating to the legislation. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may be of additional assistance. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this letter. Sincerely, Peter J. Kadzik Assistant Attorney General",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=cc85de16-0c40-4e47-be2a-bfa4611fa583,"House Passes Reform for Regulations Covering New Medical Therapies, Bill Heads to Presidents Desk",2015-11-18,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WashingtonA new measure that would bring predictable timeframes to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) scheduling process so new treatments can reach patients in a timely and transparent manner has passed in Congress and is now on its way to the Presidents desk. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Senate HELP Committee, lauded House passage of the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act, for which they are the original cosponsors. I am pleased the House ofRepresentatives has passed this important legislation to give patients faster access to newly approved therapies,Hatch said.Our regulatory approach shouldnt ignore the urgent needs of Americas patients for lifesaving treatments. Enacting this law is an important step in streamlining administrative processes, increasing transparency, promoting medical innovation, and improving patient health. A slow and seemingly unnecessary DEA approval process is preventing patients from getting new and innovative treatments that can help them, said Whitehouse.This legislation will limit the amount of time the DEA has to make a decision, ensuring quicker access for patients. I thank Senator Hatch for working with me on this bill and our House counterparts for moving it forward. I look forward to having it signed into law by the President. The ImprovingRegulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act will amend the Controlled Substances Act to require the DEA to schedule a drug or substance that has never been marketed in the United States within 90 days of receiving a scheduling recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, the legislation clarifies that for this subset of drugs that must be scheduled, market exclusivity periods begin on the date a product can actually be marketed, just as it is for other new drug products. The bill will also allow a company applying to register with the DEA to manufacture a controlled substance to indicate on the application that the substance will only be used for clinical trials of a drug.DEA would be required to either make a final decision on the application for registration within 180 days or inform the applicant of the outstanding issues that must be resolved to reach a final decision.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a7387283-c628-42d7-a498-e6d763520b7f,Lee Fights Broken Education Reauthorization Process,2015-11-18,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONToday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding the fraudulent manner in which the conference process has unfolded with respect to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization bill. Mr./Madam President, this is how the conference process is supposed to work. But it is not how the conference process has been conducted with respect to this bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. Sure, were still voting to appoint conferees. And those conferees will still convene a conference. And that conference will still produce a conference report. So from the surface, it will still look like the conference process is happening the way its supposed to. But beneath the surface we know that all of this has already been pre-arranged, pre-cooked, pre-determined... by a select few members of Congress, working behind closed doors, free from scrutiny. And we know that this vote was scheduled on extremely short notice, so that it would be difficult if not impossible for the rest of us to influence the substance of the conference report through motions to instruct. Now, why does this matter? We know the American people care deeply about K-12 education policy. But why should they care about this obscure parliamentary procedure in the Senate? They should care and Mr./Madam President, we know that they do care because the process influences the policy. In this case, the process expedites the passage of policies that we know dont work policies to which the American people are strongly opposed. The speech also highlighted a successful Utah model, which is reworking the early education system at a local level: In my home state of Utah, for instance, United Way of Salt Lake has partnered with two private financial institutions, Goldman Sachs and J.B. Pritzker, to provide first rate early education programs to thousands of Utah children. They call it a pay-for-success loan. With no upfront cost or risk to the taxpayers, private capital is invested in the Utah High Quality Preschool Program, which is implemented and overseen by United Way. If, as expected, the preschool program results in increased school readiness and improved academic performance, the state of Utah repays the private investors with the public funds it would have spent on remedial services that the children would have needed between kindergarten and the twelfth grade, had they not participated in the program. Washington policymakers should not look at Utahs pay-for-success initiatives and other local success stories like them as potential federal programs, but as a testament to the power of local control. Full text of Senator Lees remarks as prepared for delivery are available here,",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=75b9c843-52f7-4ebc-8a83-6242dd06f42b,Hatch Votes to Roll Back EPA Overreach,2015-11-17,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WashingtonIn response to the Obama administration's recent finalization of the EPA's Clean Power Plan rules thatwould require significant emission reductions to both new and existing power plantsacross the country, the Senate passed two bipartisan resolutions to repeal these costly new regulations late Tuesday afternoon. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, the senior Republican in the Senate, cosponsored both bills and spoke out about his opposition to the Obama administration's controversial plan: The EPA's unlawfulclean power regulation would make virtually no difference in reducing global emissions and instead would amount to a hidden tax on all Americans by substantially increasing domestic energy prices. Such an unwise course would simply make America less competitive globally and saddle hard working families with higher energy bills.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=902ece23-673e-4ac1-a001-3044771170c9,"Hatch Defends Utah Police in Senate Hearing Critical of the ""War on Police""",2015-11-17,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONAs police and policing tactics are under increased public scrutiny, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing onTuesdayabout how the federal government undermines state and local law enforcement. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his staff consulted with Utah law enforcement leaders recently to discuss morale and the the way the current political climate is affecting police efforts. He shared comments from Utah law enforcement leaders who suggested that law enforcement is getting mixed signals,that the current climate is affecting recruitment, and that the Department of Justice has been too quick to jump in to criticize law enforcement. Im very concerned about the climate the Obama administration has createdor contributed tofor law enforcement, Hatch said. Ms. Mac Donald describes in her written testimony how the President has amplified and encouraged criticisms of law enforcementcriticisms that have emboldened individuals to resist officers requests and to interfere with officers ability to do their job. Senator Hatchs remarks, as prepared for delivery: Over the summer, my staff met with a number of Utah law enforcement leaders to discuss law enforcement morale and how the current political climate is affecting police efforts. Id like to share some examples of what these Utah law enforcement leaders had to say: Law enforcement is getting mixed signals about how proactive they should be. [The current climate] is affecting recruitment.... Weve had recruitment problems since last fall. DOJ has been too quick to jump in to criticize law enforcement. We need our leaders to wait to jump in and criticize. People are feeling proud to push back against police officers.... Being a law enforcement officer right now is not popular. But standing up to law enforcement is popular. I want to emphasize: This is not my gloss on the current law enforcement climate. These are the words of Utah law enforcement leaders describing what its like to be a police officer right now. And I have to say, Im very concerned about the climate the Obama administration has createdor contributed tofor law enforcement. Ms. Mac Donald describes in her written testimony how the President has amplified and encouraged criticisms of law enforcementcriticisms that have emboldened individuals to resist officers requests and to interfere with officers ability to do their job. One Utah police chief described to my staff how a police officer who responded to a domestic violence call at an apartment complex found himself surrounded by a hostile crowd of apartment residents that all had their cell phones out, anxious to record any mistake the officer might make. If you talk to police officers, at least in Utah, they will express profound disappointment with how the administration has contributed to the negative narrative law enforcement faces right now. Our President should be working to strengthen law enforcement and to help protect our brave officers. Regrettably, in my judgment, he has done neither. In fact, it seems he has done the opposite. I thank the Chairman for convening this important hearing.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c9c044a7-4a50-4898-9ac2-1d4a53f67347,Hatch Applauds DOJ Efforts to Enforce Dietary Supplement Regulations,2015-11-17,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee issued the following statement after the Department of Justice and federal agency partnersannounced enforcement actions of dietary supplement cases: I applaudeffective enforcement of the federal laws and regulations governing dietary supplements. Dangerous products illegally masquerading as lawful dietary supplements present a serious risk to public health. To address this problem, Congress has provided ample authorities to the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice, and numerous other federal agencies to protect consumers, and I have long advocated foreffectiveenforcement of federal standards. Such action isessential to a well-functioning regulatory infrastructure on which millions ofdietary supplement consumers, like me, depend. In May 2015, Senator Hatch and Senator Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch to strongly urge DOJ, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to prioritize the aggressive pursuit of individuals and companies that illegally manufacture and sell misbranded drug products falsely labeled as dietary supplements.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d049e528-1f12-4020-ac77-53e3fbb150d1,Hatch Lauds House Bill Addressing Default Mens Rea,2015-11-17,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement on introduction of H.R. 4002, Criminal Code Improvement Act of 2015: I applaud my House colleagues for taking a stand against unjust prosecution and incarceration of morally innocent actors by reformingcriminal intent requirements. Too often, our criminal laws and regulations leave individuals vulnerable to prosecution for conduct they didnt know was wrong. I have been working hard on mens rea reform here in the Senate and plan to introduce companion legislation soon. I look forward to working with my House colleagues to move this issue forward and to reduce our nations overcriminalization problem.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=de82a1f1-4f14-425d-a44d-dd7db15e4ea8,Hatch Statement on Attacks in Paris,2015-11-13,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement regarding the attacks in Paris: Our prayers are with those lost and their families, as well as in support of those working to ensure the safety of others. Tonight, we are united with thepeople of France. As we grapple with the barbarism of this terrible attack, the worldmust stand resolved that these terrorists cannot be allowed to succeed.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/heroism-continues-today,Heroism Continues Today,2015-11-12,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY I have the great honor of serving on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, a responsibility that requires that I spend a lot of time in very troubled and chaotic parts of the world. During these travels, I see U.S. military personnel serving under some of the most hostile and difficult circumstances that you can imagine. It is inspiring to see these soldiers serving so proudly and with such great courage and dignity. They and their families for let's not forget that every one of them leave loved ones behind who must carry on without them make this great sacrifice willingly. I often ask these amazing young men and women why they are willing to serve under such difficult circumstance. I've heard many good reasons, but one young lieutenant probably said it best: ""Because I love my country,"" he said. Every time I see these warriors and their selfless sacrifice, it makes me grateful. Grateful for their example. Grateful for our nation that embodies ideals that are worthy of such a sacrifice. Grateful for a nation that could produce such selfless young soldiers. Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes. One of his greatest talents was the ability to sum up complicated ideas in such a way that we understood it down into the center of our souls. He once said, ""Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."" I was blessed that my parents taught me to love my country and to want to protect our freedoms. My father was a pilot in World War II. It was my honor to serve as a pilot in the Air Force for 14 years. Five of my brothers have served in the military as well. My parents had a family creed that has been passed down now through three generations: This family's creed is Duty, Honor, Service to God, Family and Country. It's important to realize the fight that Ronald Reagan talked about continues today. As we watch events unfold around us, we are constantly reminded that we live in a dangerous world. Knowing these are difficult times, we cannot understate our gratitude for our service members who sacrifice every day to protect our freedoms and way of life. Lt. Col. Jay Hess, from my hometown of Farmington, is a great example of someone who 'fought for, protected, and handed on"" our freedom. Col. Hess spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war at the infamous Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam, one of the most despicable prisons the world has ever seen. Prisoners there endured incredibly miserable conditions, including starvation, torture, beatings, unsanitary conditions and months of solitary confinement. After 2 1/2 years, Col. Hess was finally able to read a letter written to him by his family. He commented that he smiled while reading the letter, but after a short while it hurt because those smile muscles were gone. He hadn't smiled for 2 1/2 years. It was a joyous day when he was finally released and reunited with his family, 5 1/2 years after capture. Despite all of this hardship, Hess looked back on his life and experience and said, ""How could I be so lucky? So fortunate? It's a good life."" Col. Hess is a true American hero. But let's remember that such heroism continues today. In dark and dangerous places all around the globe, American soldiers are doing what they can to bring stability and safety to strategically important parts of the world. Today, we should remember them. Thank them. Keep them and their families in our prayers. What we have asked to them to do isn't easy. They deserve our gratitude and support. Originally published on November 11, 2015 on KSL.com",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=9863c343-7723-4134-9beb-4ba015a15592,Defending our Nation Against Cyberthreats,2015-11-12,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"An alarming surge in cyberattacks is costing American taxpayers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Glaring vulnerabilities in our cybersecurity infrastructure have even resulted in high-profile breaches at large corporations, including Target, Home Depot, Sony, and others. Sadly, the proliferation of cyberthreats shows no sign of abating. Unless Congress acts to strengthen our defenses, the future of our economy and our national security is in danger. This year alone, we have witnessed a staggering number of cyberattacks against our nation. In February, Chinese hackers breached the records of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, stealing the personally identifiable information of nearly 80 million customers. In the early summer, Chinese cybercriminals also hacked United Airlines, compromising manifest data that detailed the movement of millions more. By far the most devastating cyberattack this year was against the United States Office of Personnel Management. Considered the worst cyber-intrusion ever perpetrated against the U.S. government, the OPM data breach affected about 21.5 million federal employees and contractors. Hackers successfully penetrated OPM firewalls to access the sensitive personal information of individual Americans, including security clearance files, social security numbers, and information about employees contacts and families. In this unprecedented attack, China was again the suspected culprit. When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Washington last month, he and President Obama reached an agreement that their respective governments would not conduct or knowingly support cybertheft of intellectual property or commercial trade secrets. Many national security expertsincluding Director of National Intelligence James Clapperimmediately expressed pessimism about Chinas willingness to uphold its end of the deal. I add my skepticism to the growing chorus of lawmakers, military leaders, and intelligence community personnel who doubt the sincerity of this agreement. I also join policymakers in their concerns regarding cyberthreats from nations other than China. Many investigators believe that Russia, North Korea, Iran, and several other countries have launched their own cyber-offenses against the United States. These attacks are increasing, both in number and in severity. Just last April, Russian hackers accessed White House networks containing sensitive information, including emails sent and received by the President. Only a few months later, a Russian spear phishing attack shut down the Joint Chiefs of Staff email system for 11 days. Many hackers hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, including the cybercriminals who breached IRS servers last May to gain access to 330,000 American taxpayers tax returns. That same month, a fraudulent stock trader manipulated U.S. markets, costing the stock exchange an estimated $1 trillion in just 36 minutes. Just one month ago, hackers stole the personal data of 15 million T-Mobile customers by breaching Experianthe company that processes credit checks for prospective users. This stolen data includes names, birthdates, addresses, social security numbers, and credit card information. We must act now to prevent cybercriminals from launching even more damaging attacks. Many commentators have expressed disappointment in the Presidents inability to protect our federal computer systems from cyber-intrusions and to hold hackers accountable for their actions. Our lack of effective cybersecurity policies and procedures threatens the safety of the American people, the strength of our national defense, and the future of our economy. Congress must be more vigilant in reinforcing our cyber-infrastructure to protect our nation against these attacks. Lawmakers can build a stronger cyber-defense by creating severe deterrents for those who commit these crimes. Our adversaries should know that they will suffer dire consequences if they attack the United States. Thats why I support the objectives outlined in the bipartisan Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA). This legislation incentivizes and authorizes private sector companies to voluntarily share cyberthreat information to detect and prevent future cyberattacks. CISA also includes provisions to protect individual privacy by preventing a users personally identifiable information from being shared with government agencies. In light of recent revelations highlighting the federal governments inability to protect and secure classified data and other sensitive information, I recently introduced the bipartisan Federal Computer Security Act a version of which was included in the Senate's recently passed CISA legislation. My bill shines light on whether our federal government is using the most up-to-date cybersecurity practices and software to protect federal computer systems and databases from hackers. Specifically, it requires federal agency Inspectors General to report to Congress on the security practices used to safeguard classified and personally identifiable information on federal computer systems. These reports will guide Congress in helping prevent future large-scale data breaches and blocking unauthorized users from accessing classified and sensitive information. The future of our nations cybersecurity starts with the federal government practicing good cyber-hygiene. In strengthening our security infrastructure, the federal government should be accountable to the American peopleespecially when cyberattacks affect millions of taxpayers. My legislation and the broader CISA bill represent a crucial first step in protecting our nations vulnerable infrastructure from the devastating impacts of cyberattacks. I will not rest until the federal government takes adequate measures to protect and secure Americas presence in cyberspace. Published inMediumon November 12, 2015.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=01b76fd0-c568-4cea-9f60-465bcb590d1b,Senators Press ESEA Conference Chairs to Include Evidence Based Innovation in ESEA Bill,2015-11-12,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, member and former chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colo., also a member of the Senate HELP Committee, sent a letter today to the conference chairs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), urging that they include the Education Innovation and Research language and provisions committing to evidence-based innovation in the conferenced bill. As you negotiate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) conference report, we respectfully request that the final agreement include a strong commitment to evidence-based innovation in education, the Senators wrote. Too often, we fund unproven programs with little to show in the way of results. More of our federal dollars should work to encourage innovative programs and practices that can demonstrate significant education outcomes. Our Education and Innovation Research Program establishes a dedicated funding stream to support the development and expansion of evidence-based programs and practices designed and implemented by educators and local communities. Background The Education Innovation and Research amendment would create a dedicated funding stream to support the development and scale up of evidence-based practices that encourage innovations in policy and practice. This grant would provide flexible funding for a broad range of locally-driven projects and allow schools, districts, non-profits, and small businesses to develop proposals based on the specific needs of students and the community. Grants would be awarded based on past success, with funding levels tied to the strength of the evidence the applicant is able to present of their programs effectiveness. The full letter is attached and below: Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, Chairman Kline, and Ranking Member Scott: As you negotiate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) conference report, we respectfully request that the final agreement include a strong commitment to evidence-based innovation in education. Too often, we fund unproven programs with little to show in the way of results. More of our federal dollars should work to encourage innovative programs and practices that can demonstrate significant education outcomes. Our Education and Innovation Research Program establishes a dedicated funding stream to support the development and expansion of evidence-based programs and practices designed and implemented by educators and local communities. The Education Innovation and Research Program supports the development of innovative programs and practices through a three-tiered grant process. An early-phase grant allows applicants to develop evidence-based interventions that show promise; a mid-phase grant funds and evaluates the implementation of an early-phase grant and other practices that demonstrate effectiveness; and a final-phase grant supports replication and evaluation of programs and practices designed and supported by evidence to produce sizable effects. By providing funds based on results, grant amounts are determined by increasingly stringent evidence and evaluation requirements. This program funds solutions that grantees design and implement themselves. It also encourages applicants to be entrepreneurial and develop projects to meet specific community needs. This approach is consistent with the objective of the Every Child Achieves Act (S. 1177) and the Student Success Act (H.R 5) to empower those closest to our children. We believe that providing communities with greater resources to develop their own evidence-based solutions will lead to better results for schools and for students. To that end, this grant program is modeled on the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, under which 11 federal agencies set aside a small percentage of their budgets to award grants to small companies engaged in the development and evaluation of new technologies. Both the Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences have provided consistently positive assessments of the programs success. By applying this approach to education, we can provide a critically needed supply of new, entrepreneurial ideas to help solve the most significant problems in education. In doing so, we will get the most bang for our buck, while allowing local leaders to improve on the status quo that is not performing for many ofour students. As part of our united commitment to empower state and local leaders, make sound investments, and increase definite outcomes, we urge you to include this commitment to evidence-based funding in a final conference package. Sincerely, ____________________ ____________________ Orrin G. Hatch Michael Bennet",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7e179db7-a5ed-4ed9-ba0d-7aa613af4460,Hatch Speaks on Contemporary Threats to Religious Liberty,2015-11-10,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took to the Senatefloor to deliver the fifth in a series of speeches on religious liberty this afternoon. Senator Hatch has previously delivered speeches on thebasic principles, thehistory, andthestatus and substanceof religious liberty.Last week, headdressed the criticalbalance between faith and public life. Todays speech focused on the contemporary threats religious liberty faces at home. In ways that are both surprising and unprecedented, religious liberty is under attack here in the United States. I speak not merely of attacks on particular practices, but also of attacks on the very idea of religious liberty itselfon the idea that there should be room in society for believers to live and to worship in ways that differ from prevailing orthodoxy. The campaign against religious liberty has three prongs: the courts, the Obama administration, and state legislatures. My goal today is to explain how each of these institutions is undermining the vitality of religious life in our country and why what they are doing is wrong. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again on the topic of religious liberty. This is the fifth in a series of addresses I have given on this vitally important subject. In my previous remarks, I have discussed why religious liberty matters, why its important, and why it deserves special protection from government interference. I have also detailed the history of religious liberty in the United States in order to show that the desire for religious freedom was central to our nations founding and to the very idea of America. From the beginning, religious liberty has been a preeminent value in American life: government accommodates religion, not the other way around. Lastly, in my previous remarks I have sought to explain how religion has always had a robust public role in our society and to rebut the wrongheaded, ahistorical view that religion is a purely private matter that should be kept out of the public domain. Today I turn to the status of religious liberty in contemporary American life. My argument is straightforward. In ways that are both surprising and unprecedented, religious liberty is under attack here in the United States. I speak not merely of attacks on particular practices, but also of attacks on the very idea of religious liberty itselfon the idea that there should be room in society for believers to live and to worship in ways that differ from prevailing orthodoxy. The campaign against religious liberty has three prongs: the courts, the Obama administration, and state legislatures. My goal today is to explain how each of these institutions is undermining the vitality of religious life in our country and why what they are doing is wrong. Many Americans are unaware of the substantial threats religious liberty faces here in the United States. They look abroad to the Middle East or to Africa, where Islamist regimes are killing Christians and other dissenters from religious orthodoxy, and suppose that by comparison, things are not so bad here in the United States. While it is true that religious minorities in America do not face death or serious physical harm for choosing to live their faith, we must not blind ourselves to the ways in which our government institutions are undermining religious liberty. We must instead come to recognize that powerful forces in our society are working actively to restrict the ability of religious believers to live out their faith and to foist upon them government mandates that are flatly inconsistent with their most deeply held beliefs. I begin with the courts, which I identified as the first front in the fight against religious liberty. For a number of years now, there has been a steady stream of cases in which everyday Americans have been sanctionedsometimes severelyfor adhering to religious tenets that conflict with current political orthodoxy. The examples are myriad. A photographer in New Mexico was fined $7,000 dollars for declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony on the grounds that her religious beliefs teach that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that she could not in good conscience lend her services to the event. A florist in Washington state was fined $1,000 dollars for declining to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding. And a couple in Oregon who owned a cake shop were ordered to pay$135,000dollars for telling a same-sex couple that they could not provide a cake for their wedding ceremony because the shop owners adhere to a traditional, biblically based view of marriage. The message that these court cases send is clear: if you are a religious individual with religiously rooted views that differ from the current policies of the state, you follow your beliefs at your own peril. Even those who dont endorse the view that its appropriate for businesses to deny service to customers on the basis of deeply held beliefs must concede that the fines and other sanctions in these cases present a direct threat to religious liberty. Note that there was no suggestion in any of these cases that the defendants refusal to provide service actually prevented the same-sex couple from obtaining the desired items. In each case, other photographers, florists, and bakers without religious or moral objections stood ready to assist. The state was not stepping in to ensure that the couples had access to needed goods and services. Rather, the injury to the couple in each case was that the defendant would not sanction their ceremony. The state did not like the message the defendants religious beliefs conveyed and so ordered the defendant to pay a potentially ruinous fine. The notion that government can overrideor punish individuals fordeeply held religious beliefs merely because those beliefs deviate from prevailing views strikes at the very heart of religious liberty. Religious liberty is the right of an individual to practice his or her beliefs even in the face of government, social, or community opposition. If all that is needed for government to override a persons deeply held beliefs is a disagreement over whether the persons beliefs send the right message, then religious liberty is weak indeed. It is no longer a preferred value that government must make room for, but rather a common, run-of-the-mill interest that government can override essentially at will. Recent court cases have undermined religious liberty and threatened the integrity of our religious institutions in other ways as well. One case, decided by the Supreme Court about five years ago, held that schools can require student religious groups to accept nonbelievers as leaders, even though doing so could undermine the groups mission and install as leaders individuals who do not share the groups core beliefs. Other cases have sown confusion about students ability to express religious conviction in school settings. Teachers and school administrators have barred students from wearing religious imagery, from affirming their faith in essays and speeches, and from performing religious music because they fear running afoul of judicial prohibitions on state establishment of religion. Other officials have denied religious groups access to state facilities to worship or to hold meetings, again fearing potential lawsuits. But courts are not the only place where religious liberty is under attack. I am sorry to say, Mr. President, that the current administration has done much to weaken religious freedom and to undermine rights of conscience. Certainly the most notorious instance of the administrations efforts to undermine religious liberty is the Obamacare contraception mandate. This provision requires employers to provide their employees access to contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs even when the employer has profound moral objections to such drugs. There is a narrow exemption for houses of worship, but countless other religious employersincluding religious schools, hospitals, and charitiesmust either comply with the mandate in violation of their religious beliefs or pay substantial financial penalties. The administration has also stripped funding from religious groups that refuse, as a matter of conscience, to toe the administrations line on abortion and contraception. In a remarkable and short-sighted move, the administration revoked funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishopss relief program for victims of human trafficking because the Conference declined, on religious grounds, to refer victims for abortion or contraceptives. So not only is the administration using the threat of financial loss to pressure religious groups to violate their beliefs, but it is also harming trafficking victims by hindering the ability of religious groups who differ from the administration on matters of conscience to aid victims. The administration, too, has put federal contractors that subscribe to traditional views on marriage and sexuality on the horns of a terrible dilemma. Last year the President issued an executive order prohibiting contractors from taking into account sexual orientation or gender identity when hiring employees. The order contains no exemptions for contractors with religious affiliations. Under the Presidents order, a contractor with a religious mission may be forced to hire an individual who holds views that run counter to that mission in order to remain eligible for federal contracts. The Presidents order thus creates the very real possibility that religiously affiliated contractors will have to choose between impairing the integrity of their organization and competing for federal funds. In addition to pursuing these troubling policies, the administration has also taken extreme and unsupportable positions in court filings that, if adopted, would undermine religious freedom. Before the Supreme Court, the administration made the remarkable claim that federal law authorizes the federal government to involve itself in the hiring and firing of church ministers. Specifically, the administration said that federal antidiscrimination laws override the First Amendment right of churches to select whomever they wish as ministers and instead allow the administration to actuallysuea church if it believes a particular hiring or firing was improper. This radical position would allow the federal government to insert itself into some of the most important decisions churches make regarding religious doctrine and governance. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected the administrations positionunanimously. Indeed, in a striking rebuke, the Court called the administrations claim that the First Amendment provides no more protection to a church in selecting its leaders than it does to a labor union[] or a social club...remarkable. But the fact that the administration felt comfortable making this argument, and apparently thought that it was a correct argument, speaks volumes regarding the administrations dim view of religious liberty. More recently, the administration has signaled that the forced legalization of same-sex marriage will present religious schools and institutions with significant challenges in reconciling school standards with federal antidiscrimination laws. At oral argument in the Obergefell [Oh-ber-ga-fell] case, one of the Justices asked the Solicitor General whether a religious school that opposed same-sex marriage would lose its tax-exempt status. The Solicitor General responded, Its certainly going to be an issue. With those seven words, the Solicitor General made clear that religious institutions that adhere to traditional views regarding marriage and sexualitysuch as by providing housing only to opposite-sex coupleswill face potentially staggering financial consequences for their commitment to their religious convictions. The third front in the fight against religious liberty is the state legislatures. In many ways, what we are seeing at the state level is a mirror of what the administration has been doing at the federal level. Just as the administration has stripped funding from religious organizations that refuse to follow the administrations liberal social policies, states have withdrawn funding and licenses from groups that adhere to traditional religious views. Massachusetts, for example, passed a law requiring state-licensed adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples. As a result, Catholic Charities, which had operated adoption services in the state for over 100 years, was forced to shut down its adoption program. Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois were similarly forced to close after the state announced that it would no longer provide funding to adoption agencies that decline to place children with same-sex couples. Other religiously affiliated groups and schools have lost contracts, faced loss of accreditation, and been denied permission to use public facilities because of their doctrinally based views on family, marriage, and sexuality. The mayor of Houston even went so far as to subpoena internal church communications as part of an intimidation campaign against churches that opposed a city nondiscrimination ordinance. Far from treating religious liberty as apreeminentvalue, many states and localities have thrust it aside in favor of other goals. Another disturbing trend at the state level has been the growing opposition to state religious freedom laws. Over 20 years ago, I helped lead a broad bipartisan effort in Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. RFRA sought to undo a misguided Supreme Court decision that authorized Congress and the states to abridge religious freedom so long as their actions did not specifically target religion. RFRA says that government may not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to further a compelling government interest. The coalition that helped pass RFRA included members as ideologically diverse as Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Strom Thurmond, and Phil Gramm. Groups from across the political spectrum, such as the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the Christian Legal Society, strongly supported the bill. Given this broad, cross-ideological support, RFRA passed the House without recorded opposition and passed the Senate 97 to 3. Nearly unanimous. For a major piece of legislation like RFRA to pass Congress with only three recorded no votes was nearly unprecedented, and indicated the breadth of support at the time for the view that religious liberty deserves special protection. Twenty years later, however, the consensus in favor of robust protections for religious liberty has splintered. Whereas the federal RFRA was able to pass Congress almost without opposition, recent efforts to enact state-level RFRAs have run into substantial resistance. Efforts in Indiana and Arizona, to name two examples, ignited media firestorms and generated strong pushback from groups who mistakenly viewed the measures as discriminatory. Both bills, it should be emphasized, were modeled after the federal RFRA, but the political dynamics have changed so dramatically over the last twenty years that protecting religious freedom has gone from being the rare issue on which all sides can agree to being a political hot potato. Some groups that supported the federal RFRA have even taken the position that future RFRAs must contain carve-outs for particular groups or particular issue areas. Many of these same groups endorsed an effort by Senate Democrats last year to exempt from the federal RFRAallfederal laws and regulations related to health care. Of course, any carve-outs in religious liberty protections undermine those protections, because they limit the field in which religious liberty has full effect. For this reason the federal RFRA contains no such carve-outs. Indeed, opposition to carve-outs was a key element in both assembling and maintaining the RFRA coalition two decades ago. Even if members had varying views on the merits of certain practices, the one thing all could agree on is that religious liberty is a fundamental, universal value that should apply equally to everyone. But the price of admission for many groups today is a willingness to cut back on religious liberty in instances where religious belief conflicts with progressive social goals. Twenty years ago this sort of hostage-taking was nowhere on the agenda. But religious liberty has now become a secondary goalor worse, an impedimentfor many liberal groups, who value progressive social policy over protecting the rights of believers. This backtracking by many formerly stalwart defenders of religious liberty represents one of the most serious ways that religious freedom is under attack in our country. Ill note one other political sea change that is undermining religious liberty here in the United States. For many years, groups on the left have been advocating for laws to prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation. I am in general agreement with such laws and do not believe that sexual orientation should be grounds for discrimination or mistreatement. Many of the groups advocating for these laws have previously been willing to include exemptions for religious organizations that hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality. I believe that such exemptions are appropriate and strike the right balance by protecting rights to nondiscrimination while enabling religious organizations to hold true to their beliefs. Indeed, I believe it isessentialfor nondiscrimination laws to properly accommodate religious liberty and I would actively oppose any such law that fails to account for the rights of religious believers. Unfortunately, many groups that were previously willing to support religious exemptions in nondiscrimination laws have reversed course. For example, many groups that supported last Congresss federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDAwhich would prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientationhave withdrawn their support for the Act because it contains a robust exemption for religious organizations. This Congress, they are instead supporting the Equality Act, which contains no religious exemption at all. I supported ENDA because I believed it reflected the right balance between nondiscrimination and religious liberty. I still believe it does. But many groups on the left have indicated that they are willing to cast religious liberty aside in furtherance of other goals. For these groups, religious liberty no longer deserves special protection. It is no longer a preeminent value. Rather, it should be accommodated only so far at it is convenient and does not interfere with other objectives. This is a sea change, and one that bodes ill for the future vitality of religious freedom. Mr. President, I said at the outset that religious liberty is under attack in America in ways that are both surprising and unprecedented. Certainly the willingness of former defenders of religious freedom to turn their backs on believers is both. I would like to close by returning briefly to the New Mexico photographer case I mentioned earlier, for that case contains perhaps the most surprising and unprecedented feature of all. In a concurring opinion, one of the judges in the case called the requirement to violate ones religious beliefs when they conflict with state social policy the price of citizenship. That statement represents a complete inversion of the relationship between government authority and religious liberty here in America. When we are born or become American citizens, we do not surrender our rights of conscience to the government. We do not pledge our allegiance to a secular God. Weretainour right to religious liberty. Indeed, not only do we retain our right; our governmentguaranteesour right to freely practice our faith in accordance with the dictates of conscience. As the Declaration of Independence instructs, all menand womenare endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and it is the fundamental purpose of government tosecurethose rights. If there is a price we pay as American citizens, it is not that we give up our God-given rights, first and foremost of which is the right of religious liberty. It is that we agree to work together to promote the common good of our country. Mr. President, subjugating religious beliefs to government decrees is not the price of citizenship. To the contrary, respecting and honoring the fundamental rights of all Americans is the price that ourgovernmentpays in order to enjoy the continued consent of the American people. Those who attack religious liberty and seek to devalue its place in society fundamentally misunderstand this key point. Unfortunately, too many in America todayfrom the courts to the Obama administration to the state legislaturesundervalue religious freedom and view it at best as a secondary goal. People of goodwill here in Congress and across our nation need to recognize that religious liberty is under attack and that unless we stand up and vocally support the rights of believers to live their faith, we will find much of what we have fought for, and much of what our forebears fought for, swept away. We must fortify the rights of believers to follow their conscience even when their fellow citizens, or elected officials, would prefer a different course. I will have much more to say on this topic in future remarks.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=78c8a420-667c-4e4f-b7e9-95f24bb95738,Lee Applauds Fifth Circuit Decision Upholding Injunction of Obamas Executive Amnesty Program,2015-11-10,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Tuesday, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision affirming a federal district courts nationwide injunction against President Obamas Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program.The Fifth Circuit has issued a strong and well-reasoned opinion upholding aninjunction that temporarily blocks President Obamas lawless executive amnesty program, Lee said. Our immigration system does need reform. But the reform must be debated and passed by Congress, not unilaterally imposed on the American people by the executive branch.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=f9f15cf5-be03-4a4d-a0bb-bc4c4e769f91,Senator Lee Delivers Remarks on National Pregnancy Center Week,2015-11-10,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONToday, Senator Mike Lee delivered remarks on the Senate floor regarding National Pregnancy Center Week. Senator Lee requested unanimous consent from the Senate to approve Senate Resolution 37, which would designate the second week in November as National Pregnancy Center Week. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) objected to the request. Full text of Senator Lees remarks as prepared for delivery is available below, and video can be viewed here. Madam President, I rise today to support, and to request the Senates approval of, Senate Resolution 37 a resolution that would designate this week in November National Pregnancy Center Week, in honor of the life-saving and life-affirming work of Americas community-supported pregnancy centers. I am asking for my colleagues unanimous consent because there is absolutely nothing contentious about this resolution or the pregnancy-resource centers it commemorates. There are approximatelytwenty-five hundredpregnancy-resource centers in America. And every single day, they serve an average ofsixty-five thousandwomen and men faced with challenging pregnancy decisions, providing them a wide array of resources. This includes, at many centers, health-care services like pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and testing for STDs and STIs. It includes emotional and educational support like options counseling and parenting classes. And it includes material and logistical assistance to help new moms and dads deal with all the little things that easily add up to big obstacles in the first weeks and months of parenthood. Americas pregnancy-resource centers arent out to make a profit or push an agenda. Theyre just there to help and to do so in a way that is compassionate, considerate of individual privacy, and respectful of the equal dignity of all human life. Madam President, any way you look at it, Americas pregnancy-resource centers deserve to be recognized with a National Pregnancy Center Week. But the real measure of their significance isnt in the words of a floor speech or the outcome of a vote its in the millions of lives they help save from abortion every year. The millions of teachers, soldiers, and nurses, neighbors, friends, and spouses, whose lives and contributions to our communities we might never have known had it not been for the unassuming heroes down at the local pregnancy center, giving their time to keep the lights on, answer the phones, and to help young women and men find the hope and courage to choose life. Read the Resolution here: Resolution Designating the week beginning November 8, 2015, as National Pregnancy Center Week",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/congressional-app-challenge-open-students-utah%E2%80%99s-3rd-district,Congressional App Challenge Open to Students in Utahs 3rd District,2015-11-09,2015,2015-11,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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://chaffetz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=443,Congressional App Challenge Open to Students in Utah’s 3rd District,2015-11-09,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Jason Chaffetz,C001076,chaffetz.house.gov,,,legacy,"t share: f “Recognizing today’s young innovators will help us build tomorrow’s cutting edge workforce"" Congressman Jason Chaffetz today announced the participation of Utah's Third Congressional District in the second annual Congressional App Challenge (CAC) – an app design competition for U.S. high school students who are learning coding skills. “Utah has so many promising young students – digital natives who have grown up using technology. We need to facilitate the development of STEM-based skills that will sustain Utah’s robust economy. Recognizing today’s young innovators will help us build tomorrow’s cutting edge workforce,” Chaffetz said. The Challenge registration period opens today. Apps can be submitted through January 15, 2016. The competition is open to all high school students, regardless of their level of coding experience. Students may work individually or in groups and students of all skill levels are encouraged to participate. A panel of local judges will evaluate student entries and select winners to be honored by Rep. Chaffetz and featured on a display in the United States Capitol. The CAC was created by Congress in 2013 to acknowledge the critical role of STEM skills in this nation’s economic future. As countries around the world compete for the most viable industries and technologies, the demand for STEM-based skills is projected to grow by 17% by 2018, compared to a 9.8% growth rate for non-STEM occupations. According to some estimates, the U.S. may be short as many as 3 million high-skilled workers by 2018. By investing in our youth now, we can work to maintain American competitiveness in the global marketplace. During its first year, the CAC received submissions from students in 84 Congressional districts, including Utah’s 3rd District. This year, the Challenge is striving to double that number. The Internet Education Foundation will be serving as the operational “sponsor” for the CAC. For further information and instructions about the Congressional App Challenge, please visit congressionalappchallenge.us.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-s-statement-on-the-rejection-of-the-keystone-pipeline,Rep. Stewarts Statement on the Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline Project,2015-11-06,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement regarding President Obamas announcement that the administration has rejected the proposal for the Keystone XL pipeline. This project, which has been under review for seven years, would bring crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the gulf coast. Its absurd that the White House has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline project, Stewart said. Numerous environmental studies have been conducted by the Presidents own State Department, and all have concluded that this project is safe and will not have significant environmental impacts. While Im not surprised, its unfortunate that this President is establishing a pattern of playing politics with our energy development and economy.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=0ab0d666-5bbe-409b-9dfb-40e41fc02486,Hatch Statement on Administrations Notice to Sign Trans-Pacific Partnership,2015-11-06,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Chairman of the Senate FinanceCommittee, today issued the following statement after the Obama administration notified Congress of its intent to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The announcement comes after the administration released the final text of the agreement early this morning. That the administration intends to sign the trade agreement does not mean its duty is over to convince Congress that this TPP is the best agreement possible. Only Congress can enact the trade agreement, and for that to happen, the agreement must meet the requirements laid out in bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Transparency and accountability are key objectives of TPA. Now that the text is public, as was required by TPA, the administration should expect the agreement to undergo rigorous review. Under TPA, the President cannot sign the agreement for at least 90 days from the time he notifies Congress of his intent to enter into the agreement. This review process enables Congress to carefully scrutinize the agreement before it is signed, and if necessary, recommend changes to the agreement. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and stakeholders throughout this process to determine whether this TPP agreement meets the high-standards set by TPA and whether it should be enacted into law. Earlier this week, Hatch outlined expectations the administration must meet as Congress considers TPP in an OpEd for The Hill. A longtime advocate of tearing down trade barriers, Hatch has championed efforts to enhance Americas global competitiveness and increase access for American farmers, workers, and job-creators in international markets. Hatch co-authored legislation to renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that was signed into law in June.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=41c5bd78-f834-41c7-8b49-b0b3d2187efa,Hatch Statement on the Presidents Decision to Reject the Keystone XL Pipeline,2015-11-06,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, issued the following statement on the Presidents decision to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline: President Obamas rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline represents our brokenregulatory process at its worst.The Obama administration dragged out the review process for years to serve its own political ends only to reject this commonsense project based on extreme left-wing ideology.We cannot allow abuses like this to continue, which is whyIm fighting to reform infrastructure permitting as well as our regulatory system more broadly.The Senate passed our bipartisan permit streamlining measures as part of the highway bill, and Im fighting to enact it into law.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=32e2b129-aebb-4f12-8ada-34dde43d3ad9,Hatch Speaks on Faith and Public Life in Fourth Religious Liberty Address,2015-11-04,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took to the Senate Floor to deliver the fourth in a series of speeches on religious liberty this afternoon. Senator Hatch has previously delivered speeches on the basic principles, the history, and on the status and substance of religious liberty. Todays speech focused on the proper relationship between faith and public life. Despite the hard-fought progress in recent years both in protecting religious liberty and in restoring sanity to the courts approach to the Establishment Clause, this notion of strict separation continues to exert a pernicious influence, shrinking the sphere of acceptable religious exercise. In so doing, it undermines religious liberty and limits the ways in which faith enriches our society. Restoring a proper relationship between faith and public life must continue to be a top priority as a key component of our broader efforts to protect religious liberty for future generations. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below. Mr. President, freedom of religion is one of the foundational principles of our republic. It has long been central to our identity as a self-governing people, and as a cause, it has long enjoyed wide support across partisan and ideological divides for generations. Recently, however, religious liberty has come under coordinated assault by those who would hastily discard one of our founding principles to serve a narrow, transient political agenda. Given how defending religious liberty has been one of the animating goals of my public life, I feel compelled to speak out against this disturbing development. Since the end of the August recess, I have endeavored to speak regularly on the subject to remind my colleagues of the need to maintain our historic allegiance to this most American of values. So far, I have addressed the first principles of why we should protect religious freedom, as well as the legal and political history of the concept. Today, I aim to address the role of religion in public life and its critical contribution to the preservation of freedom of religion. Mr. President, one particular phrase has come to describe the relationship between faith and public life in this country: the separation of church and state. Over the years, the invocation of this phrase has become so rote that many consider it axiomatic. While the phrase itself is quite terse, it has become shorthand for a particular narrative about the history and status of religion in American life. This narrative traces back to Thomas Jefferson, who famously advocated for a wall of separation between church and state. Under Jeffersons leadership, Virginia passed the Law for the Establishment of Religious Freedom in 1786, which aimed to end state prescription and proscription of any particular religion. Anchored in a cursory reference to Jefferson, generations of Americans have been brought up to believe that our founding principles demand that faith be driven out of government and kept contained to a private sphere, with no role in public life and no semblance of interaction with the state. This narrative is flatly inconsistent with our history and our Constitution. Put plainly, the Jeffersonian model of strict separation was a novel experiment that constituted a decidedly minority viewpoint in the early Republic. The dominant model at the time was embodied by the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, which largely protected religious liberty but also instituted a mild and equitable establishment of religion that enshrined Christian piety and virtue. In Adamss view, as articulated by one scholar, every polity must establish by law some form of public religion, some image and ideal of itself, some common values and beliefs to undergird and support the plurality of protected private religions. The notion that a state could remain neutral and purged of any public religion was [neither realistic nor desirable]. Jefferson himself acknowledged that the statute he crafted in Virginia was a novel experiment that broke with practice not only in the American colonies, but also in the United Kingdom and the wider Western world. At the outbreak of the Revolution, the Anglican Church enjoyed official established status in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia as well as in the New York City area. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the system of municipal government empowered individual towns to choose a church to establish, resulting in Congregationalism as the established religion throughout most of New England. Only Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island lacked officially established churches. Nevertheless, even these states without officially established churchesincluding famous havens for religious dissenters such as Pennsylvania and Rhode Islandmaintained significant ties between church and state, including in matters of church finances, religious tests for public office, and blasphemy laws. While the Revolution brought about a number of new state constitutions that officially disestablished a number of state churchesparticularly the Church of England after the severing of political ties to the Crownthe advent of the new Republic did not bring about universal disestablishment or adherence to the model of strict separation. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, about halfdepending on ones exact definitionof the fourteen states then admitted to the Union had an established church or allowed municipal governments to establish such a church. Moreover, every single state sponsored or supported one or more churches at the time. In the words of Notre Dames Gerard Bradley, even Rhode Island, that polar star of religious liberty, maintained what would today constitute an establishment at the time it ratified the First Amendment. Mr. President, my purpose for bringing up this history is not to advocate for states to return to the era of officially established churches or to advocate for any of the restrictive measures of that time. Indeed, as a Mormon, Im keenly aware both of how the machinery of government can be used to oppress religious minorities and of how a faiths flourishing comes not from state sanction or promotion, but rather from the dedication and devotion of individuals, families, and communities. Instead, my purpose is to note the plain incongruity between the conventional wisdom of rigid separation between church and state supposedly commanded since the Founding by the Establishment Clause and the actual history of religion in public life in the days of the early Republic. This apparent disconnect can be resolved by an examination of the text of the Constitution. The text of the First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Notice the exact formulation: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. On its face, the language affects only one actor: Congress, not states and local governments, and not individual citizens. Put another way, at the time of its adoption, the First Amendment neither created an individual right to be free from religion nor limited the power of the states to establish religion; it simply created a structural limit on federal power. The debates over the ratification of the Bill of Rights confirm this interpretation. As a general matter, the Establishment Clause received relatively little attention in the ratification debates in the state legislatures and among the public. Indeed, it hardly seems tenable that states would have adopted a measure at odds with their ongoing practices with little discussion or dispute. What attention the Establishment Clause did receive made it clear that its language was intended to prevent the federal government from choosing a preferred religious sect, a logical move befitting a new nation made up of states with a wide variety of religious traditions and approaches to established religion. Furthermore, the ratification debates clarify that the ratifiers viewed official establishment of a particular church as direct financial support for a preferred sect, wholly distinct from the non-discriminatory support and encouragement of religion in general, which the Establishment Clause was not thought to limit. For a century and a half, this understanding of the Establishment Clause endured with little challenge. Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court decided only three Establishment Clause cases of any significance. Indeed, the major debate on the subject during the intervening years revolved around a proposed change to the Constitution: the 1875 Blaine Amendment that sought to extend the application of the Establishment Clause to the states and to ban explicitly any churchs access to public funds. This legislative effort, borne largely out of anti-Catholic prejudice, faileda failure that further underscored the settled nature of the Establishment Clause at that time. Unfortunately, religion was not spared from the destructive judicial activism of a Supreme Court that spun wildly out of control in the mid-twentieth century. A new crop of justices, disinclined to follow the traditional judicial role of applying the law as written, instead sought to remake the law according to their left-wing worldview. From inventing new rights for criminals to mandating nearly unlimited access to abortion on demand, the Court in this period left few stones unturned in its radical rewriting of the Constitution. The longstanding understanding of the Establishment Clause was one of the mid-century Courts first victims. Abandoning the understanding of the Clause I have previously detailedan understanding that was clearly supported by text, structure, history, and precedentthe Court turned the Establishment Clause on its head. In the error-filled words of Justice Black, the Court said in Everson v. Board of Education that The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. This pronouncement had no basis in text, history, or law. To the contrary, it was diametrically opposed to the understanding of the relationship between government and religion and between the federal government and the states that had endured for much of Americas history. Justice Black justified the Courts entirely novel, ahistorical view by turning to Jefferson: In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state. Thus was born the now-commonplace view that the Establishment Clause was meant to create a high wall separating church and state. Mr. President, this decision represents a complete inversion of the previously settled, proper understanding of the Establishment Clause. The command that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion is turned from a structural protection against federal power into an individual right to be free from religion. The text protecting the states power to decide whether and what church to establish is, in the words of one scholar, paradoxically and perversely transformed into a limitation on states authority to make such a decision. The critical distinction between official establishment of a particular church and general support of religion without regard to particular sects is casually discarded in favor of a blanket prohibition on religious involvement in public life. And in the words of two scholars, throughout its decision the Court not only ascribed to the Establishment Clause separationist content; it imagined a past to confirm that interpretation. Both majority and dissent treated the history of the United States as if it were the history of Virginia. Despite dissimilarity of language, the justices equated the Establishment Clause with Virginias statute on religious freedom, thereby appropriating for the federal provision the separationist message and rhetoric of the state enactment. As I have explained, the history of Virginia on the subject of state establishments of religion is not the history of the United States. Rather, Virginia was, as Jefferson said a novel experiment on the issue. Other states continued to support state-established churches. The wall-of-separation doctrine, which the Court created out of whole cloth in Everson, was not the American tradition. It was an idiosyncrasy of Jeffersons. Upon this fundamentally flawed foundation, the federal courts have constructed a jurisprudence that threatens any place for religion in the public sphere. Embracing the demonstrably false notion that the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection [were] sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity, the Supreme Court soon adopted the so-called Lemon test for any law to withstand: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. In announcing this test, the Supreme Court sounded a note of modesty, noting that the Justices could only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation in this extraordinarily sensitive area of Constitutional law. This admissionthough ironic given the Courts ambition to complete the transformation of the Establishment Clause away from its historical and textual foundationwas, if anything, an understatement. The Courts efforts to draw a line between the permissible and the impermissible have completely failed. Justice Rehnquist rightly diagnosed the cause of these bizarre results: These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The . . . test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The Court has responded to these acknowledged difficulties not by abandoning its flawed Establishment Clause jurisprudence, but by inventing new tests while never overturning Lemon or the flawed understanding that undergirds it. By one scholars estimation, the Supreme Court has employed nine alternate tests of impermissible establishment of religion. Another scholar identifies sixteen. While the exact count understandably varies, the result is the same: muddled law that lacks any principled means of application. This lack of clarity enables judicial activism. By liberating the judiciary from the obligation to apply a clear rule, this muddied framework invites judges and justices to implement their own policy views as law. While this framework sows confusion in marginal cases, its overall effect is clear: to squeeze religion out of government and to deny religious organizations the opportunities afforded to secular counterparts. And while the addition of principled jurists to the Court has turned momentum against previous excesses, the thrust of the Courts misguided Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains dominant. The Courts flawed wall-of-separation jurisprudence has kept religion out of the public square and fed the idea that religion is a private matter to be practiced within the confines of ones church or home. Legal and social pressure have taken their toll, and the results are stark: No prayer in school; No new Ten Commandments displaysor even Christmas or Hanukkah displaysunless carefully secularized; A widespread prejudice in many quarters against public officials talking about God or about their beliefs in public; And even the crusade every December to replace the phrase Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays; Mr. President, the conventional wisdom peddled by advocates for stringent exclusion of religion from the public sphere is that aggressive enforcement of their vision of the Establishment Clause enhances religious freedom. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The erroneous wall-of-separation doctrine has narrowed the role of religion in public discourse, fueling the view that religion is a private matter rather than a fundamental precept of American civil society. Even members of this esteemed body have fallen prey to the disturbing claim that religious freedom doesnt extend much further than the church door. Such an approach undermines religious liberty in numerous ways. It counsels government to avoid any perceived entanglement with religioneven accommodation of religious practice, at the core of the right to free exercise. It tells the religious believer that in order to participate fully in public life, he should cabin and hide his religious devotion: Just abandon your religious affiliation, and the government will partner with your school or charity; Just muzzle your faith, and you can fully participate in representative government and lawmaking; Just keep your religion private, and you wont face a swarm of litigation. Indeed, despite the hard-fought progress in recent years both in protecting religious liberty and in restoring sanity to the courts approach to the Establishment Clause, this notion of strict separation continues to exert a pernicious influence, shrinking the sphere of acceptable religious exercise. In so doing, it undermines religious liberty and limits the ways in which faith enriches our society. Restoring a proper relationship between faith and public life must continue to be a top priority as a key component of our broader efforts to protect religious liberty for future generations. Thank you, Mr. President.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=37473723-6d60-4207-92d3-3ece14338954,Hatch Speaks on Faith and Public Life in Fourth Religious Liberty Address,2015-11-04,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took to the Senate Floor to deliver the fourth in a series of speeches on religious liberty this afternoon. Senator Hatch has previously delivered speeches on thebasic principles, thehistory, and on thestatus and substanceof religious liberty. Todays speech focused on the proper relationship between faith and public life. Despite the hard-fought progress in recent years both in protecting religious liberty and in restoring sanity to the courts approach to the Establishment Clause, this notion of strict separation continues to exert a pernicious influence, shrinking the sphere of acceptable religious exercise. In so doing, it undermines religious liberty and limits the ways in which faith enriches our society. Restoring a proper relationship between faith and public life must continue to be a top priority as a key component of our broader efforts to protect religious liberty for future generations. The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below. Mr. President, freedom of religion is one of the foundational principles of our republic. It has long been central to our identity as a self-governing people, and as a cause, it has long enjoyed wide support across partisan and ideological divides for generations. Recently, however, religious liberty has come under coordinated assault by those who would hastily discard one of our founding principles to serve a narrow, transient political agenda. Given how defending religious liberty has been one of the animating goals of my public life, I feel compelled to speak out against this disturbing development. Since the end of the August recess, I have endeavored to speak regularly on the subject to remind my colleagues of the need to maintain our historic allegiance to this most American of values. So far, I have addressed the first principles of why we should protect religious freedom, as well as the legal and political history of the concept. Today, I aim to address the role of religion in public life and its critical contribution to the preservation of freedom of religion. Mr. President, one particular phrase has come to describe the relationship between faith and public life in this country: the separation of church and state. Over the years, the invocation of this phrase has become so rote that many consider it axiomatic. While the phrase itself is quite terse, it has become shorthand for a particular narrative about the history and status of religion in American life. This narrative traces back to Thomas Jefferson, who famously advocated for a wall of separation between church and state. Under Jeffersons leadership, Virginia passed the Law for the Establishment of Religious Freedom in 1786, which aimed to end state prescription and proscription of any particular religion. Anchored in a cursory reference to Jefferson, generations of Americans have been brought up to believe that our founding principles demand that faith be driven out of government and kept contained to a private sphere, with no role in public life and no semblance of interaction with the state. This narrative is flatly inconsistent with our history and our Constitution. Put plainly, the Jeffersonian model of strict separation was a novel experiment that constituted a decidedly minority viewpoint in the early Republic. The dominant model at the time was embodied by the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, which largely protected religious liberty but also instituted a mild and equitable establishment of religion that enshrined Christian piety and virtue. In Adamss view, as articulated by one scholar, every polity must establish by law some form of public religion, some image and ideal of itself, some common values and beliefs to undergird and support the plurality of protected private religions. The notion that a state could remain neutral and purged of any public religion was [neither realistic nor desirable]. Jefferson himself acknowledged that the statute he crafted in Virginia was a novel experiment that broke with practice not only in the American colonies, but also in the United Kingdom and the wider Western world. At the outbreak of the Revolution, the Anglican Church enjoyed official established status in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia as well as in the New York City area. In Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the system of municipal government empowered individual towns to choose a church to establish, resulting in Congregationalism as the established religion throughout most of New England. Only Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island lacked officially established churches. Nevertheless, even these states without officially established churchesincluding famous havens for religious dissenters such as Pennsylvania and Rhode Islandmaintained significant ties between church and state, including in matters of church finances, religious tests for public office, and blasphemy laws. While the Revolution brought about a number of new state constitutions that officially disestablished a number of state churchesparticularly the Church of England after the severing of political ties to the Crownthe advent of the new Republic did not bring about universal disestablishment or adherence to the model of strict separation. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791, about halfdepending on ones exact definitionof the fourteen states then admitted to the Union had an established church or allowed municipal governments to establish such a church. Moreover, every single state sponsored or supported one or more churches at the time. In the words of Notre Dames Gerard Bradley, even Rhode Island, that polar star of religious liberty, maintained what would today constitute an establishment at the time it ratified the First Amendment. Mr. President, my purpose for bringing up this history is not to advocate for states to return to the era of officially established churches or to advocate for any of the restrictive measures of that time. Indeed, as a Mormon, Im keenly aware both of how the machinery of government can be used to oppress religious minorities and of how a faiths flourishing comes not from state sanction or promotion, but rather from the dedication and devotion of individuals, families, and communities. Instead, my purpose is to note the plain incongruity between the conventional wisdom of rigid separation between church and state supposedly commanded since the Founding by the Establishment Clause and the actual history of religion in public life in the days of the early Republic. This apparent disconnect can be resolved by an examination of the text of the Constitution. The text of the First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Notice the exact formulation:Congressshall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. On its face, the language affects only one actor: Congress, not states and local governments, and not individual citizens. Put another way, at the time of its adoption, the First Amendment neither created an individual right to be free from religion nor limited the power of the states to establish religion; it simply created a structural limit on federal power. The debates over the ratification of the Bill of Rights confirm this interpretation. As a general matter, the Establishment Clause received relatively little attention in the ratification debates in the state legislatures and among the public. Indeed, it hardly seems tenable that states would have adopted a measure at odds with their ongoing practices with little discussion or dispute. What attention the Establishment Clause did receive made it clear that its language was intended to prevent the federal government from choosing a preferred religious sect, a logical move befitting a new nation made up of states with a wide variety of religious traditions and approaches to established religion. Furthermore, the ratification debates clarify that the ratifiers viewed official establishment of a particular church as direct financial support for a preferred sect, wholly distinct from the non-discriminatory support and encouragement of religion in general, which the Establishment Clause was not thought to limit. For a century and a half, this understanding of the Establishment Clause endured with little challenge. Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court decided only three Establishment Clause cases of any significance. Indeed, the major debate on the subject during the intervening years revolved around a proposed change to the Constitution: the 1875 Blaine Amendment that sought to extend the application of the Establishment Clause to the states and to ban explicitly any churchs access to public funds. This legislative effort, borne largely out of anti-Catholic prejudice, faileda failure that further underscored the settled nature of the Establishment Clause at that time. Unfortunately, religion was not spared from the destructive judicial activism of a Supreme Court that spun wildly out of control in the mid-twentieth century. A new crop of justices, disinclined to follow the traditional judicial role of applying the law as written, instead sought to remake the law according to their left-wing worldview. From inventing new rights for criminals to mandating nearly unlimited access to abortion on demand, the Court in this period left few stones unturned in its radical rewriting of the Constitution. The longstanding understanding of the Establishment Clause was one of the mid-century Courts first victims. Abandoning the understanding of the Clause I have previously detailedan understanding that was clearly supported by text, structure, history, and precedentthe Court turned the Establishment Clause on its head. In the error-filled words of Justice Black, the Court said in Everson v. Board of Education that The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. This pronouncement had no basis in text, history, or law. To the contrary, it was diametrically opposed to the understanding of the relationship between government and religion and between the federal government and the states that had endured for much of Americas history. Justice Black justified the Courts entirely novel, ahistorical view by turning to Jefferson: In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state. Thus was born the now-commonplace view that the Establishment Clause was meant to create a high wall separating church and state. Mr. President, this decision represents a complete inversion of the previously settled, proper understanding of the Establishment Clause. The command that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion is turned from a structural protection against federal power into an individual right to be free from religion. The text protecting the states power to decide whether and what church to establish is, in the words of one scholar, paradoxically and perversely transformed into a limitation on states authority to make such a decision. The critical distinction between official establishment of a particular church and general support of religion without regard to particular sects is casually discarded in favor of a blanket prohibition on religious involvement in public life. And in the words of two scholars, throughout its decision the Court not only ascribed to the Establishment Clause separationist content; it imagined a past to confirm that interpretation. Both majority and dissent treated the history of the United States as if it were the history of Virginia. Despite dissimilarity of language, the justices equated the Establishment Clause with Virginias statute on religious freedom, thereby appropriating for the federal provision the separationist message and rhetoric of the state enactment. As I have explained, the history of Virginia on the subject of state establishments of religion isnotthe history of the United States. Rather, Virginia was, as Jefferson said a novel experiment on the issue. Other states continued to support state-established churches. The wall-of-separation doctrine, which the Court created out of whole cloth in Everson, was not the American tradition. It was an idiosyncrasy of Jeffersons. Upon this fundamentally flawed foundation, the federal courts have constructed a jurisprudence that threatens any place for religion in the public sphere. Embracing the demonstrably false notion that the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection [were] sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity, the Supreme Court soon adopted the so-called Lemon test for any law to withstand: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. In announcing this test, the Supreme Court sounded a note of modesty, noting that the Justices could only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation in this extraordinarily sensitive area of Constitutional law. This admissionthough ironic given the Courts ambition to complete the transformation of the Establishment Clause away from its historical and textual foundationwas, if anything, an understatement. The Courts efforts to draw a line between the permissible and the impermissible have completely failed. Justice Rehnquist rightly diagnosed the cause of these bizarre results: These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The . . . test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The Court has responded to these acknowledged difficulties not by abandoning its flawed Establishment Clause jurisprudence, but by inventing new tests while never overturning Lemon or the flawed understanding that undergirds it. By one scholars estimation, the Supreme Court has employed nine alternate tests of impermissible establishment of religion. Another scholar identifies sixteen. While the exact count understandably varies, the result is the same: muddled law that lacks any principled means of application. This lack of clarity enables judicial activism. By liberating the judiciary from the obligation to apply a clear rule, this muddied framework invites judges and justices to implement their own policy views as law. While this framework sows confusion in marginal cases, its overall effect is clear: to squeeze religion out of government and to deny religious organizations the opportunities afforded to secular counterparts. And while the addition of principled jurists to the Court has turned momentum against previous excesses, the thrust of the Courts misguided Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains dominant. The Courts flawed wall-of-separation jurisprudence has kept religion out of the public square and fed the idea that religion is a private matter to be practiced within the confines of ones church or home. Legal and social pressure have taken their toll, and the results are stark: No prayer in school; No new Ten Commandments displaysor even Christmas or Hanukkah displaysunless carefully secularized; A widespread prejudice in many quarters against public officials talking about God or about their beliefs in public; And even the crusade every December to replace the phrase Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays; Mr. President, the conventional wisdom peddled by advocates for stringent exclusion of religion from the public sphere is that aggressive enforcement of their vision of the Establishment Clause enhances religious freedom. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The erroneous wall-of-separation doctrine has narrowed the role of religion in public discourse, fueling the view that religion is a private matter rather than a fundamental precept of American civil society. Even members of this esteemed body have fallen prey to the disturbing claim that religious freedom doesnt extend much further than the church door. Such an approach undermines religious liberty in numerous ways. It counsels government to avoid any perceived entanglement with religioneven accommodation of religious practice, at the core of the right to free exercise. It tells the religious believer that in order to participate fully in public life, he should cabin and hide his religious devotion: Just abandon your religious affiliation, and the government will partner with your school or charity; Just muzzle your faith, and you can fully participate in representative government and lawmaking; Just keep your religion private, and you wont face a swarm of litigation. Indeed, despite the hard-fought progress in recent years both in protecting religious liberty and in restoring sanity to the courts approach to the Establishment Clause, this notion of strict separation continues to exert a pernicious influence, shrinking the sphere of acceptable religious exercise. In so doing, it undermines religious liberty and limits the ways in which faith enriches our society. Restoring a proper relationship between faith and public life must continue to be a top priority as a key component of our broader efforts to protect religious liberty for future generations. Thank you, Mr. President.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=390683e1-5cc5-41f5-8f06-e5a6b76b4a56,Fox News: Hatch Presses Administration on Obamacare CO-OPs,2015-11-04,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"35,000 Utahns will be left without health insurance as a result of the closure of Utah's Obamacare CO-OP, Arches Health Plan, announced last week. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah is seeking answers. Nearly 870,000 individuals have enrolled in 23 CO-OPs nationwide, and yesterday Arizonas co-op became the 11th to shutter its doors. Twenty-two of the total 23 CO-OPs are reportedly losing money and many are headed by political activists with no business experience. Sen. Hatch, along with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., sent a letter today to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Acting Administrator Andrew M. Slavitt, pressing the administration on the financial viability and management of the CO-OP program. ?",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=887497cb-96df-4e16-87c5-b0639bcc26fd,Lee Calls on Congress to Assert Constitutional Powers Ahead of Climate Talks,2015-11-04,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called on Congress to assert its constitutional powers ahead of the upcoming U.N. climate-change negotiations in Paris. First, the House and Senate should take up and pass a joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that an agreement of the cost and legal character contemplated by the Obama administration in Paris should be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, Lee said. The purpose of this resolution would not be to oppose the presidents plans on the merits, Lee continued, but simply to make explicit that which has been implicit in every other previous climate-change negotiation. Lee also identified the power of the purse as another constitutional power Congress should use to make sure President Obama does not commit the United States to a climate-change agreement in Paris without seeking the Senates advice and consent. Members of both chambers and from both parties have a constitutional duty to assert with one voice that Congress will not send a dime of taxpayer money to the implementation of any agreement to which the Senate has not provided its advice and consent, Lee said. That goes for the billions of dollars that President Obama has pledged to send to the so-called Green Climate Fund. And it goes for any other funds that the Paris agreement would expect the United States to give to developing countries for clean-energy adaptation, Lee continued. Negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are set to begin in Paris on November 30 and will run through December 11.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-responds-to-the-president-s-natural-resources-memorandum,Rep. Stewart Responds to the President's Natural Resources Memorandum,2015-11-03,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. -- Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement in response to the Presidents memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment. This memorandum calls on federal agencies to take additional steps to offset the environmental impacts of development, specifically expanding the 26 year old no net loss wetlands policy. It would have a significant impact on use of federal lands and potentially on the use of all natural resources. The Presidents Executive Memorandum is a very big deal, Stewart said. ""It is destructive to States rights, the political process, and good policy and to call it a power grab is a gross understatement. If this is carried out, it would be devastating for economic activity in the western United States. Equally appalling, it will further erode the basic trust between American people and this president. We all want to protect the environment, but it doesnt have to be at the cost of our western way of life. As a member of the Appropriations committee, I will use every tool at my disposal to ensure that this outrageous Presidential decree is never implemented.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=8b300d95-f768-48f6-b603-36d1ab9a1447,Fact Sheet: Hatch Defends Utahns Against Expansion of FederalAuthority Over Land and Water,2015-11-03,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"How the Federal Government Wants to Expand Its Authority Over Land And Water In June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) issued a final Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that expanded the scope of federal authority over land and water at the expense of Utahns. The rule has been called a massive land grab that will expose Utah farmers, ranchers, home owners, and businesses to significant compliance costs and new fines. Today the Senate will vote on the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, which Senator Hatch has cosponsored. This bill will direct the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the flawed rule and issue a revised proposal. How This Hurts Utah WOTUS will require Utah farmers, ranchers, and other business to obtain federal land use permits at a median cost of $155,000. As the second driest state in the nation, this new water rule will directly or indirectly impact all of Utah. Any water that drains into the Colorado River, the Green river, the Virgin River, the Paria River will be regulated under this rule and it will affect everything from desert washes to small ponds and irrigation ditches on Utahs family farms and ranches. WOTUS will have a major impact on jobs and businesses. Here are a few examples of how industries will be affected, via the US Chamber: Retailers: Retailers who salt a parking lot in the winter to keep customers from slipping on the ice might need a federal permit: Retailers, shopping centers, and other businesses with paved parking lots will be more likely to be required to treat their stormwater/snowmelt runoff before it leaves their property. For example, big box retail stores with garden centers or vehicle maintenance services are particularly likely to face more stringent Clean Water Act permitting required by EPA and the Corps. In some cases, these businesses would be required to obtain NPDES permits for the first time for discharges to WOTUS. Building Materials Makers: Wood product manufacturers and other makers of building materials produce dust and dirt that washes into ditches next to their plants. WOTUS would force these companies to apply for a federal permit to clean out those ditches: Materials used in their products like sawdust, clay, and dust, can get into their stormwater and, ultimately, into their ditches. These ditches must periodically be cleaned out so they can flow properly. Currently, most of these ditches are regulated by the States through the section 402 stormwater program. Under the revised WOTUS definition, they would likely have to obtain section 404 permits to remove clay sediment from these ditches when maintaining them. Requiring building products companies to get section 404 permits for ditch maintenance would be a costly, time-consuming mandate that puts additional economic stress on the industry (as well as on the construction industry) while doing nothing to actually improve water quality. Sand, Stone, and Gravel Production: The raw materials for sand, stone, and gravel are often located near water. More stringent federal rules could limit the availability of these supplies. Not only would these industries be hurt, but the construction of highways, public works, and residential and commercial building projects would be seriously impacted. Railroads:WOTUS would make maintaining the ditches along the 140,000 miles of track running across the country a federal issue: Railroad ditches may be WOTUS under the proposed rule even if they are dry nearly all of the year, or are not hydrologically connected to a traditional WOTUS. As one company has noted, we have thousands of miles of ditches which could suddenly become subject to onerous regulation with absolutely no benefit to the environment. Who Opposes This Power Grab? Nearly Everyone Affected. When finalizing the rule, the administration was insincere in listening to stakeholder concerns then effectively ignored them. It ignored opposition from families, farmers, ranchers, home builders, state and local governments, small businesses, and other property owners. Randy Parker, CEO, Utah Farm Bureau Federation The recently finalized EPA rule on Waters of the US (WOTUS) creates tremendous uncertainty for farmers and ranchers across Utah and the nation as the Obama Administration seeks to expand federal jurisdiction over the states and private property rights. Utah Farm Bureau appreciates the work of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the U.S. Senates ranking Republican, to stop this regulatory overreach. It is clear under the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have set limits on EPA regulation. Foremost, Utah Farm Bureau is concerned with the expansive definition of tributary including landscape features that will ultimately bring farmers irrigation ditches and Utahs many dry gullies that flow only during occasional rains under the new WOTUS definition and EPA regulation. WOTUS provides no clarity, no certainty and Farm Bureau sees no limits to the power the agency is seeking! The American Farm Bureau Federation ""TheFederal Water Quality Protection Act(S. 1140) addresses critical concerns we have with EPAs waters of the U.S. proposed rule. There can be no question that the rule poses a serious threat to farmers, ranchers and private landowners. The proposal, if finalized, would allow EPA to regulate well beyond the limits authorized by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court."" U.S. Chamber of Commerce ""The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the worlds largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending Americas free enterprise system, supports the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S.1140) and the Committees efforts to address the Environmental Protection Agencys and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers significant jurisdictional overreach as these agencies prepare to finalize their proposed definition of waters of the United States.' Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) ""It is now abundantly clear that Congress needs to provide guidance to the agencies and set parameters for that regulation. TheFederal Water Quality Protection Act(S. 1140) would require the withdrawal of the joint rulemaking recently finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) revising the definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). S. 1140 then provides to EPA and the Corps the procedural and substantive direction necessary for development of a more reasonable rule that will protect the nations navigable waterways."" U.S. Conference of Mayors ""TheFederal Water Quality Protection Act(S. 1140) requires the EPA and the Corps to work closely with states and local governments to develop a new proposed waters of the U.S. rule as partners with the federal government in implementing and enforcing CWA programs. The Act is consistent with our belief that states and localities should be consulted in meaningful ways on rules before they are formally proposed, especially if the rule will have a significant impact on capital costs, operations and mandates for the people we serve as required under federal law."" The Science Behind WOTUS Is Disputed by the Army Corps of Engineers Officials in the Army Corps of Engineers have actually challenged the administrations characterization of the rule as a joint effort of the EPA and the Corps. Major General John Peabody, the Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, has written multiple public letters disavowing the rule, stating that the administration shall not identify the Corps as author, co-author, or substantive contributor, that it should not be referenced as an involved agency, and asked that its logo be removed from any documents. General Peabody also argued data has been selectively applied out of context, and mixes terminology and disparate data sets. EPA documents related to the rule contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies and logical inconsistencies."" Internal Army Corps of Engineer memos also suggest that certain provisions in the rule, including the 1500 ft. limitation and the 4000 ft. bright line rule, are not based on any science or law and are thus legally vulnerable. TheArmy Corps of Engineers Also Questions theLegality of the Rule A federal district court hasalready enjoined the rule andraised numerous constitutional questions. The Army Corp of Engineers now joins it in raising legal questions about the internal processes related to its development. According to General Peabody: The draft final rule continues to depart significantly from the version provided for public comments, and that the corps recommendations relation to our serious concerns have gone unaddressed. Specifically, the current draft final rule contradicts long-standing and well-established legal principles undergirding CWA 404 regulations and regulatory practices, especially the decisive Rapanos Supreme Court decision. The rules contradictions with legal principles generate multiple legal and technical consequences that in the view of the Corps would be fatal to the rule in its current form.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=c1bb0261-c8c0-4b8b-bf3a-ee29e2889382,Hatch Defends Utahns Against Expansion of Federal Authority Over Land and Water,2015-11-03,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON LawmakersvotedTuesdayon a measure that would halt the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) efforts to establish greater federal authority over land and water. TheFederal Water Quality Protection Act,cosponsored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, directsthe EPA and theArmyCorps of Engineers to withdraw the flawed rule and issue a revised proposal. If the EPA gets its way, federal bureaucrats would expand their regulatory authority to nearly every stream and pond in the United States, saidOrrin Hatch, R-Utah. ""States like Utah are best positioned to manage our own water resources. The last thing we need is another top-down Washington approach seeking to micromanage stateresponsibilities. In June, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a finalWaters of the United States(WOTUS) rule that expanded the scope of federal authority over land and water at the expense of Utahns.The Clean Water Act, which the administration has claimed isthe basis forthe rule, added federal protections for navigable waterways and left most bodies of water to be managed by the states. Butcritics have called the latest EPA rule a massive land grab that will expose Utah farmers, ranchers, home owners, and businesses to significant compliance costs and new fines. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,WOTUS would require Utah farmers, ranchers, and other business to obtain federalpermits at a median cost of $155,000. The rule allows the federal government to regulate any water discharge that eventually drains into the Colorado River, the Green River, the Virgin River, the Paria River, or other qualifying water body, affecting everything from desert washes to small ponds and irrigation ditches on Utahs family farms and ranches. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whichdescribed the rule assignificant jurisdictional overreach, catalogued problems the rule posed to business.Retailers who salt a parking lot in the winter to keep customers from slipping on the ice might need a federal permit.Wood product manufacturers and other makers of building materials that produce dust and dirt that washes into ditches next to their plants would beforced to apply for a federal permit to clean those ditcheswhile doing nothing to improve water quality.The raw materials for sand, stone, and gravel are often located near water, and their availability could be constrained by the rule. Finally,WOTUS would make maintaining the ditches along140,000 miles of track running across the countrya federal issue. Utah Organizations Object to EPA Overreach In a statement, theUtah Farm Bureau Federation praisedSenatorHatchs effort tostop this regulatory overreach and noted that the ruleprovides no clarity, no certainty and Farm Bureau sees no limits to the power the agency is seeking! It creates tremendous uncertainty for farmers and ranchers across Utah and the nation as the Obama Administration seeks to expand federal jurisdiction over the states and private property rights.It is clear under the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have set limits on EPA regulation. Foremost, Utah Farm Bureau is concerned with the expansive definition oftributary' including landscape features that will ultimately bring farmers irrigation ditches and Utahs many dry gullies that flow only during occasional rains under the new WOTUS definition and EPA regulation. The American Farm Bureau Federation also criticized the rule and supports the SenatesFederal Water Quality Protection Act:Itaddresses critical concerns we have with EPAs 'waters of the U.S.' proposed rule. There can be no question that the rule poses a serious threat to farmers, ranchers and private landowners. The proposal, if finalized, would allow EPA to regulate well beyond the limits authorized by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court."" The Senate measure also includes a provision that requires the EPA and the Army Corps to work closely withstates and local governments to develop a new rule. The U.S. Conference of Mayors praised the provision asconsistent with our belief that states and localities should be consulted in meaningful ways on rules before they are formally proposed, especially if the rule will have a significant impact on capital costs, operations and mandates for the people we serve as required under federal law. Science Behind WOTUSIs Disputed by Members of the Army Corps of Engineers Officials in the Army Corps of Engineers have actually challenged the administrations characterization of the rule as a joint effort of the EPA and the Corps. Major General John Peabody,Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, has written multiple public letters disavowing the rule, stating that the administration shall not idenfiy the Corps as author, co-author, or substantive contributor, that it should not be referenced as an involved agency, and asked that itslogo be removed from any documents. General Peabody also argued thatCorps data, used by EPA, has been selectively applied out of context, and mixes terminology and disparate data sets. EPA documents related to the rule contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies and logical inconsistencies. Internal Army Corps of Engineer memos also suggest that certain provisions in the rule, including the 1500 ft. limitation and the 4000 ft. bright line rule, are not based on any science or law and are thus legally vulnerable. Officials intheArmy Corps of EngineersQuestionedtheLegality of the Rule A federal district court hasalready enjoined the ruleandraised numerous constitutional questions. The Army Corp of Engineers now joins it in raisinglegal questions about the internal processes related to its development. According to General Peabody: The draft final rule continues to depart significantly from the version provided for public comments, and that the corps recommendations relation to our serious concerns have gone unaddressed. Specifically, the current draft final rule contradicts long-standing and well-established legal principles undergirding CWA 404 regulations and regulatory practices, especially the decisive Rapanos Supreme Court decision. The rules contradictions with legal principles generate multiple legal and technical consequences that in the view of the Corps would be fatal to the rule in its current form.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=b2c8f7ff-d971-4a2e-b09a-6ef536f3a6c5,"Lee, Hartzler Introduce Resolution Recognizing ""National Pregnancy Center Week""",2015-11-03,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) introduced similar resolutions in the Senate and House today that designate the week of November 8, as ""National Pregnancy Center Week.""""For all that we do on Capitol Hill to affirm and protect life, it pales in comparison to the face-to-face work pregnancy-help organizations do across this country every day,"" Lee said. ""This nation is truly blessed to have so many heroes that are helping mothers, and fathers, make the courageous and selfless choice to welcome a new life into this world regardless of their personal circumstances.""Pregnancy Care Centers are a shining example of what we should be doing more as Americansindividuals and communities working together to protect and promote life, Hartzler said. These centers and the teams of dedicated people working tirelessly to assist women in need and save unborn lives. They deserve our admiration and support. From medical help, guidance, housing and material assistance, parenting lessons, emotional support, and promotion of life over abortion, roughly 2,500 pregnancy care and resource centers in America provide support and care to millions of women each and every year. It is an honor to dedicate a week to recognize their tireless efforts.In addition to designating the week of November 8 as ""National Pregnancy Center Week,"" the resolution also notes that: Nonprofit organizations have been cooperating since November 13, 1971 to save as many lives as possible from abortion; There are approximately 2,500 pregnancy centers in the United States; Pregnancy centers reach more than 2.3 million people each year; Every day in the United States pregnancy centers assist an average of 6,500 people; Approximately 1,000 medical pregnancy centers provide limited ultrasound services at little or no cost; Close to 230,000 ultrasounds are performed at pregnancy centers each year; Nearly every pregnancy center care and resource center provides clients with material support for pregnancy and infant care.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-introduces-legislation-address-government-use-cell-site-simulators,Chaffetz Introduces Legislation to Address Government Use of Cell Site Simulators,2015-11-02,2015,2015-11,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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=843faf87-fea7-4371-9572-80acee9d6e1a,18 Members of Congress Send Letter Urging Robust Education Technology Funding in ESEA,2015-11-02,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC -- Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA), Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and 14 of their Congressional colleagues have sent a letter to House and Senate education leaders urging that a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) maintain strong education technology provisions. The bicameral and bipartisan letter, which was addressed to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Education and Workforce Committee, asks ESEA conferees to include robust support in their bill for education technology and technology-specific educator professional development, preferably through a stand-alone program. Read the full letter addressed to confereeshere. In addition to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, Congressman Loebsack, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Hatch, the letter was signed by Senator Angus S. King Jr. (I-ME), Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Congressman David McKinley (R-WV), Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT), Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), Congressman Ryan Zinke (R-MT), Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Congressman Sam Graves (R-MO), Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA), Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY), Congressman Rod Blum (R-IA), Congressman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), and Congressman Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX). In the Senate, we worked closely to develop I-TECH to ensure that technology in the classroom is coupled with teacher support to give students access to a wide-range of personalized learning opportunities. Technology can greatly improve any childs classroom experience, and is most effective when combined with an emphasis on teacher development. By intertwining technology and traditional teaching methods, we can tailor each student's educational journey to his or her individual needs and learning style to boost achievement. I urge my colleagues to consider programs that give states the power to produce demonstrable results, and I-TECH does just that, said Senator Hatch. Ensuring students are prepared to compete in todays global economy starts by providing all students with the opportunity to learn in a connected environment with access to digital tools, content and services, said Brian Lewis, CEO of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). It also means investing in educators and making available new models of professional learning to support effective use of technology. Were encouraged by this letter's strong bipartisan and bicameral support for digital learning and hope that this showing of solidarity will ensure that a separate educational technology program becomes an integral part of the new ESEA.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=d8f747b4-7270-4baa-a9b1-bb696a9b6984,"Following Closure of Utah Obamacare CO-OP, Hatch Presses Administration for Answers",2015-11-02,2015,2015-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON--35,000 Utahns will be left without health insuranceas a result of the closure of Utah's Obamacare CO-OP, Arches Health Plan, announced last week.Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah is seeking answers.Nearly 870,000 individuals have enrolled in 23 CO-OPs nationwide, and yesterday Arizonas co-op became the 11th to shutter its doors. Twenty-two of the total 23 CO-OPs are reportedly losing money and many are headed by political activists with no business experience. Sen.Hatch, along withHealth, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander,R-Tenn., sent a letter today to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Acting Administrator Andrew M. Slavitt, pressing the administration on the financial viability and management of the CO-OP program. These non-profit, consumer-run health plans were intended to improve coverage, increase competition, and provide more affordable options,the Senators wrote. The CO-OPs are not living up to these expectations. To date, eleven ACA CO-OPsin Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Nevada, Tennessee, Oregon, South Carolina and Utahhave collapsed. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their health insurance plansand will have to scramble to find new plans, most likely with higher premiums and deductibles. Last week when Arches announced it would close, leaving 35,000 Utahns without health insurance plans, Senator Hatch said, The failure of Utahs CO-OP is a direct consequence of Obamacares inability to put Utah patients first. Because of Obamacares broken promises, patients in Utah will be forced out of their health plans and federal taxpayers will be left footing the bill for this botched experiment. Todays latest failure underscores the need to repeal this disastrous law in its entirety and replace it with patient-centered reforms. The text of the letter is below and a signed copy can be foundhere. November 2, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION The Honorable Andrew M. Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 200 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 Dear Mr. Slavitt, We have written to you and your predecessor regarding the many problems with the Health Insurance Marketplace. We remain concerned with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) oversight of the Marketplace. On July 30, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) raised concerns about the financial viability of Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OPs). Over the past few months, several CO-OPs have announced that they will cease operations. We write to express our concerns with the CO-OP program and to seek additional information regarding CO-OPs, the OIG report, and the actions CMS is taking to ensure taxpayer funds are protected. Section 1322 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the CO-OP program, and these non-profit, consumer-run health plans were intended to improve coverage, increase competition, and provide more affordable options. The CO-OPs are not living up to these expectations. To date, eleven ACA CO-OPsin Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Nevada, Tennessee, Oregon, South Carolina and Utah have collapsed. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their health insurance plansand will have to scramble to find new plans, most likely with higher premiums and deductibles.There are indications that additional CO-OPs will close before the end of the year bringing even greater uncertainty to the nearly 870,000 individuals enrolled in CO-OPs nationwide. In fact, New Yorks CO-OP announced on Friday that it would be closing on November 30, 2015, a month ahead of its scheduled closure because of insufficient funds to continue operation. In the OIGs July 30 report, it noted that many CO-OPs are in serious financial trouble.[3] The OIG found that from January 1 through December 31, 2014, 21 of the 23 existing CO-OPs incurred net losses and over half of the 23 CO-OPs had net losses of at least $15 million.[4] One CO-OP had a net loss of more than $50 million in 2014 alone.[5] In early October that CO-OP, Kentucky Health Cooperative, announced that it would close. Additionally, media reports have stated that CMSsent warning letters to 11 CO-OPs requiring them to take corrective action underscores the scope of the problem with this program.[6] Earlier this year, thecredit ratings firm Standard and Poors (S&P) said that medical-loss ratios for several CO-OPs were hopelessly high.[7] S&P noted that, as of September 30, 2014, 11 CO-OPs had net loss-to-surplus ratios that were worse than the now-closed CoOportunity Healths. We are concerned that the remaining CO-OPs continue to struggle with viability issues. According to the OIG report, most of the 23 CO-OPs reviewed had not met their initial enrollment and profitability projections. Additionally, most of the CO-OPs had net losses higher than their initial projections. Over $2.4 billion in federal startup and solvency loans has been paid to CO-OPs.The massive failures of so many CO-OPs raise concerns about an ACA program that was designed to increase competition. The OIG report, and the closing of ten CO-OPs, confirm many of our longstanding concerns about CO-OPs ability to repay federal loans. Our concern deepened when we became aware of the guidance CMS issued to the CO-OP project officers within CMS on July 9, 2015.[8] In that guidance CMS indicated that it will allow CO-OPs to request that surplus notes be applied to CO-OP program start-up loans. It further states that applying surplus notes to the startup loans will enable CO-OP borrowers to record those loans as assets in financial filings with regulators.[9] This raises a number of questions about whether CMS is allowing creative accounting to occur to enable the CO-OPs to appear more profitable than they actually are and if that false positive will then result in even more failures. Finally, with the failure of ten CO-OPs and potentially more to come, we note that it is imperative that consumers be given as timely of information as possible about what plan options are available to them. This is difficult when as of the date of this letter all ten of the CO-OPs that have indicated they are ceasing operations are all still listed as viable plan options for the 2016 enrollment period. Accordingly, we request the following: 1 The OIG recommended that CMS provide guidance or establish criteria to determine when a CO-OP is no longer viable or sustainable. CMS concurred and stated that it was in the process of establishing enhanced criteria and processes regarding financial viability and sustainability. Please describe the criteria and processes that CMS has established. If CMS has not yet established such criteria and processes, please provide a timeline by which it will do so. 2 The OIG recommended that CMS pursue available remedies for recovery of funds from terminated CO-OPs, in accordance with the loan agreement. Has CMS pursued any remedies for the recovery of funds from terminated CO-OPs? If not, what steps will CMS take to recoup losses from CO-OPs that appear unlikely to repay their loans? 3 In the instances of those CO-OPs who are planning to cease operations, who will be responsible for loan repayment once they cease operations? 4 What steps is CMS and/or the Office of Personnel Management taking to ensure that the plan options listed on the Federal marketplace are up to date and that consumers have sufficient choice? With respect to Utah, now that the CO-OP in Utah will be closing down, that means that in 20 of the states 29 counties, consumers will have only one choice when the open season begins. 5 Please provide all information related to the process by which CMS conducts oversight of the CO-OP program, including: 1) the process used to determine the approval and allocation of CO-OP loan and solvency grants funds, 2) any correlation between the amount of solvency loans awarded and a CO-OPs total enrollment, and 3) the results of any audits conducted of the various CO-OPs or the program as a whole. 6 Please describe CMSs interaction with state insurance regulators in identifying CO-OPs performance issues, including but not limited to performance issues that have led to additional oversight measures. Identify which CO-OPs have been subjected to additional oversight measures due to this interaction. 7 Please provide all enhanced oversight or corrective action plans CMS has placed on CO-OPs, and describe the criteria by which CO-OPs are subjected to increased oversight. The Healthcare.gov window shopping site is out of date and shows consumers incorrect information, even listing CO-OPs that are no longer in existence. What CMS official is responsible for updating the site, and why does CMS continue to provide consumers with false information? Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions. Please respond no later than November 30, 2015. Thank you for your cooperation in this important matter.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=76d5b5b2-f0a1-4a76-853a-3a5ec47f9886,Hatch Statement on Passage of Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,2015-10-30,2015,2015-10,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, issued the following statement after voting in favor of the Budget Act of 2015: ""During periods of divided government, neither party gets everything it wants. For conservatives, though, this bipartisan budget agreement includes several meaningful victories: it advances the first significant social security reform in a generation; it repeals a key part of Obamacare; and it fully funds our military without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. Though imperfect, supporting this budget agreement is the only realistic way to avert another government shutdown and avoid risking a default on our debt obligations that would further threaten the economic well-being of hardworking Utah families.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://chaffetz.house.gov/press-release/chaffetz-supports-paul-ryan-speaker-house,Chaffetz Supports Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,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 Arizona, 8th The Honorable Trent Franks resigned from the 115th Congress on December 8, 2017. Michigan, 13th The Honorable John Conyers Jr. resigned from the 115th Congress on December 5, 2017. 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=03f14c3d-1e4f-4fca-b17b-ba90f97d35ad,Hatch Invites Utahn to Testify on State's Successes in Fighting Poverty,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Utahs efforts to relieve poverty by promoting self-sufficiency were brought front and center during a Senate hearing in the nations capitalThursday by Jon Pierpont, the Executive Director of Utahs Department of Workforce Services. Pierpont appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Utahs senior senator, Orrin Hatch, in a hearing onWelfare and Poverty in America. More and more Utahns are employed and businesses continue to grow and innovate in our state, Pierpont said.This has led to an economy recognized as one of the strongest in the nation. Our unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, and our job growth is a robust 3.9 percent, with job opportunities for Utahns of all levels of skill and training Senator Hatch asked Pierpont about Utahs Next Generation Kids Program, which the senator suggested could be a model for the country. The Utah program has been designed to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty by working with children and parents together, focusing on four key areas: early childhood development, education, economic stability, and health. The program is part of the Intergenerational Poverty Mitigation Act passed by the Utah legislature in 2012. We have found that adults often cannot truly be successful when the needs of their children are not being met, Pierpont said. ""As a result, we have modified our program so that while we are engaging with parents to get them employed or increase their job skills, we are also ensuring that those parents are meeting the basic needs of their children. For Director Pierponts Full Submitted Testimony, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=175b6f55-1cf6-4714-a7d9-36cccd62bb00,Hatch Invites Utahn to Testify on State's Successes in Fighting Poverty,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.Utahs efforts to relieve poverty by promoting self-sufficiency were brought front and center during a Senate hearing in the nations capitalThursday by Jon Pierpont, the Executive Director of Utahs Department of Workforce Services. Pierpont appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Utahs senior senator, Orrin Hatch, in a hearing onWelfare and Poverty in America. More and more Utahns are employed and businesses continue to grow and innovate in our state, Pierpont said.This has led to an economy recognized as one of the strongest in the nation. Our unemployment rate is 3.6 percent, and our job growth is a robust 3.9 percent, with job opportunities for Utahns of all levels of skill and training Senator Hatch asked Pierpont about Utahs Next Generation Kids Program, which the senator suggested could be a model for the country. The Utah program has been designed to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty by working with children and parents together, focusing on four key areas: early childhood development, education, economic stability, and health. The program is part of the Intergenerational Poverty Mitigation Act passed by the Utah legislature in 2012. We have found that adults often cannot truly be successful when the needs of their children are not being met, Pierpont said. ""As a result, we have modified our program so that while we are engaging with parents to get them employed or increase their job skills, we are also ensuring that those parents are meeting the basic needs of their children.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2451167e-9b5b-4a4b-870c-11bc496b2ea7,Hatch: Positives Outweigh Negatives in Budget Deal that Preserves Defense Capabilities,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Lawmakers are considering a budget deal this week that would reform entitlements, repeal an integral Obamacare provision, avoid default, and fund the military, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utahs senior senator, argues that conservatives should support it. In a floor speech on the deal, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee argued that the deal would circumvent economic upheaval. While I may not like parts of this deal very much, there are other things that I like much less, including political brinksmanship on important matters and election-year posturing on complicated issues, Sen. Hatch said. ""For example, our defense and military leaders have made clear that spending levels under the Budget Control Act are not enough to meet the challenges our nation faces on the world stage. Between the threat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and our newly-prolonged troop presence in Afghanistan, now is not the time to underfund our military. The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the legislation that passed in the House last night and that I expect well be voting on soon here in the Senate. Anyone who hasnt been living in a cave for the past few weeks is aware of the controversy surrounding this legislation. However, while the bill is likely no ones idea of an ideal path forward, I believe the controversy stems more from political considerations than from policy or substance. Let me say one thing up front: I dont love this legislation. If we were living in the United States of Orrin Hatch, this bill would look very, very different. But, while I may not like parts of this deal very much, there are other things that I like much less, including political brinksmanship on important matters and election-year posturing on complicated issues. This budget deal, while far from perfect, will help eliminate several hurdles that must be overcome in the near term, and hopefully allow Congress to function and actually govern over the next year. That said, there are some very important provisions in this bill that I think will be counted as wins for good government and will help us address some important issues. So, Id like to take a few minutes and talk about some of the specifics of this legislation and why I believe these provisions are important. First, as we all know, the bill would suspend the statutory debt limit through mid-March of 2017. Ive heard a number of my colleagues decry this provision, arguing that any increase in the debt limit should be accompanied by fiscal reforms. And, on that count, my colleagues are right. Mr. President, I think youd be hard-pressed to find many members of this chamber who have spent more time than I have talking about our nations debt and calling for reforms. Ive spoken extensively about the need to rein in our broken entitlement programs which are the main drivers of our debt -- and, unlike most members of Congress, I have actually come up with specific proposals that would help stave off the growing entitlement crisis. On top of that, as the chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the debt limit, I have repeatedly called on the Obama Administration to do what past administrations have done, which is to use debt-limit increases as opportunities to reexamine our fiscal situation and work with Congress to find a path toward reforms that will improve our fiscal outlook. Unfortunately, these calls and similar calls made by other leaders in Congress have largely gone ignored as the administration refuses to even consider fiscal changes in the context of a debt-limit increase. I am as frustrated as anyone here by the refusal of this administration to even engage on this issue. However, the Presidents refusal to be reasonable and to do his job when it comes to our debt is no excuse for Congress failing to do its job and prevent a default. I know that some of my colleagues either dont believe a default would be that bad or that the result of hitting the debt limit could even be classified as a default. I wont delve into the semantics of the issue Ill just say that hitting the debt limit would prevent the government from meeting a large number of its obligations and nothing good and many things that are bad -- will come from that result. No reasonable person would dispute that. In addition, I dont think any reasonable person wants to see Congress push up against debt-limit deadlines multiple times throughout 2016. Mixing a looming possibility of default with election-year posturing and Im talking about posturing on both sides of the aisle, by the way is, in my view, a recipe for disaster. So, the budget bill will suspend the debt limit and spare Congress and the American people the spectacle of ticking debt clocks in the middle of an election season. Once again, this isnt my preferred result, but it is much, much better than the alternative. In addition to raising the debt limit, the bill would extend the life of the Social Security Disability Insurance or SSDI Trust Fund through a temporary reallocation of resources from the retirement trust fund into the DI program. As we all know, the SSDI trust fund is set to be exhausted sometime late next year, which would lead to benefit cuts of around 20 percent for disabled Americans. Right now, beneficiaries in the disability program face enormous uncertainty and that will only get worse between now and the end of 2016 if Congress fails to act. I have been urging action on this issue for quite some time now, and have put forward a number of proposals to reform various aspects of the disability insurance program. Sadly, despite many calls for bipartisan cooperation the administration has decided to remain silent, aside from a very simple and overly broad reallocation proposal. Nonetheless, this budget bill will, as I mentioned, provide an inter-fund reallocation that will add an additional six years of viability to the SSDI trust fund, preventing benefit cuts to disabled American workers and removing the current uncertainty. But, thats not all. The bill would also put in place reforms to the SSDI program, including some of the proposals that I put forward earlier this year and reflecting a great deal of work between Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Sam Johnson who chairs the Social Security Subcommittee and myself. Our work led to a number of features of the budget bills treatment of SSDI that will help combat fraud in the program, make it easier for those who can and desire to return to work to be able to do so, and improve the overall administration and integrity of the disability program. Mr. President, as I said before, this is not the budget bill that I would have written, and I think there are a number of other ways to improve the SSDI program and Social Security more generally. However, nothing in this bill prevents us from continuing to work to continue to develop and refine ideas and come up with additional improvements. Given the unsustainability of the Social Security system generally, we will have to continue to work on reforms to ensure these programs are available to future generations. For now, we must be realistic: If we dont act now to prevent next years benefit cuts, we will create a cliff that will occur right in the middle of an election campaign when fundamental reforms to an entitlement program will be virtually impossible. Instead of a real debate over the future of this important program, wed see accusations lobbed back and forth about which side is responsible for the impending benefit cuts. Why would anyone want that, Mr. President? What good would it accomplish? Id also like to remind my colleagues that the SSDI reforms in this budget bill represent the most significant changes to any Social Security program since 1983 more than three decades ago. That is nothing to sneeze at. So, while critics may be right that these changes arent the only type of long-term fixes the SSDI program needs, they should not, by any means, be overlooked. While were on the subject of entitlements, I also want to point out that this budget bill will avert an unprecedented and large increase in Medicare Part B premiums for millions of elderly Americans. Under the law, there is a complicated interplay between the Social Security and Medicare programs where, under what is called the hold harmless rule, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries cannot see a premium increase greater than their cost-of-living adjustment under Social Security. However, due to very low inflation, there will be no cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security in 2016, meaning there can be no premium increases for the majority Medicare Part B participants. This means that the full amount of what the Medicare system needs to collect in Part B premiums for next year will be charged to the nearly 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who do not have their premiums deducted their Social Security payments. Long story short, absent some kind of action, more than a quarter of all Medicare Part B beneficiaries will see their premiums go up by as much as 52 percent in 2016. The legislation before us will prevent this increase, once again allowing Congress to avoid a contentious fight and preventing many seniors from becoming pawns in the unending liberal political gamesmanship and demagoguery. Most importantly, it would do so in a responsible manner. In addition to sparing our country some needless political fights over Social Security and Medicare, this bill would also repeal the employer auto-enrollment requirement under the so-called Affordable Care Act. This provision, once implemented, would require large employers to automatically enroll new employees in health insurance plans, putting the burden on employees who prefer alternative plans to opt-out. This provision, like many provisions of Obamacare, never made sense and ultimately had few champions outside left-leaning think tanks that continually advocate for the government to nudge citizens into what some technocrats believe are preferred outcomes by removing certain non-preferred choices. So, with this legislation, we have bipartisan agreement on the need to remove at least part and not an insignificant part of Obamacare. Obviously, we need to do more, but, in my view, any acknowledgement from my friends on the other side that any part of the Presidents health law doesnt work is good progress. Finally, and, for many, most significantly, the bipartisan budget legislation would partially lift the budget caps established under Budget Control Act, both for domestic spending priorities and national defense. And, while very few people in Congress or elsewhere are big fans of the sequester threat, it did result in really the only legitimate, measurable spending cuts weve seen in quite some time, and is especially noteworthy given the current administrations seemingly insatiable desire for more debt-fueled spending. I sympathize with my colleagues who might be hesitant to lift those spending caps. However, I think we need to keep a few things in mind. First, the increase in the spending baseline under the bill is fully offset. And, while not all of the offsets are ideal, its important that the spending-cap relief will not result in increased debt or a tax hike. In that sense, the spending caps, even with the relief included in this bill, continue to be successful. Second, lifting the spending caps will help us ensure our military is properly funded. Many members of Congress, particularly on the Republican side, have expressed concern regarding the impact of the spending caps on our men and women in uniform and our overall military readiness. Make no mistake, these are dangerous times. American generals and military officials have made clear that the spending levels under the Budget Control Act are not enough to meet the challenges our nation faces on the world stage. Between the threat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and our newly-prolonged troop presence in Afghanistan, now is not the time to underfund our military. We need to be sure our troops have all the resources they need to succeed. As we know, President Obama has conditioned any budget-cap relief for defense on similar relief for other domestic spending programs. And, while I agree with many of my colleagues that this represents an odd set of priorities for a Commander-in-Chief, we should not let the Presidents refusal to do right by our military lead us to do the same. In addition to criticisms of the substance of the bill some of which I agree with Ive also heard complaints about the process that led us here. And, on that front as well, I share some of my colleagues concerns. It certainly would have been better to move this legislation through regular order, including committee consideration and an open amendment process. I cant speak for anyone else, but Id assume that almost everyone involved would prefer to see legislation of this magnitude move through the House and Senate in a more deliberative process and a longer timetable. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that is not what happened. However, much of the time, effective government is about the art of doing whats doable. Though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, there is a Democrat in the White House and enough Democrats in the Senate to sustain a filibuster. Thats just a fact. If we want to get anything done around here, we cannot demand perfection, nor can we operate in a zero-sum environment where every victory for the other side however minor is considered a loss for yours. I get that there are some who sincerely and truthfully believe that compromise inherently means failure. And, I know that there are others with different agendas in mind that lead them to oppose anything resembling a concession to the other side, no matter what their side may get in return. But, Ive been around here long enough to know that such an approach doesnt often yield satisfactory results. If youre going to wait for that perfect bill to come around, my experience has taught me that youre likely to wait a very, very long time. Mr. President, the budget bill before us is far from perfect. But, as the saying goes, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Under the circumstances, I believe this bill needs to pass so that we can solve these problems, remove many dangerous obstacles that are directly in front of us, and give ourselves a chance to govern effectively without the cliffs, crises, and deadlines that all too frequently dictate what we do around here. For these reasons, I plan to vote yes on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=86e81d9e-9e07-402b-99ec-e65262b339bb,Hatch Statement on Paul Ryans Election to Speaker of the House,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,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 Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement on the election of Paul Ryan to Speaker of the House of Representatives: Ive had the pleasure of working closely with Paul Ryan to develop and enact legislation to help put our nation back on track.I look forward to collaborating with him as Speaker to advance policies that will help enable hardworking Americans to prosper.Paul effectively communicates why conservative ideas like simplifying our tax code, reforming our entitlement programs, and reining in wasteful spending will unlock economic growth and enhance opportunities for American families. I believe he is the right man at the right time to help move our nation forward.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=31622d59-ecfa-4d4c-81fa-6f70016fd524,Hatch: Positives Outweigh Negatives in Budget Deal that Preserves Defense Capabilities,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Lawmakers are considering a budget deal this week that would reform entitlements, repeal an integral Obamacare provision, avoid default, and fund the military, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utahs senior senator, argues that conservatives should support it. In a floor speech on the deal, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee argued that the deal would circumvent economic upheaval. While I may not like parts of this deal very much, there are other things that I like much less, including political brinksmanship on important matters and election-year posturing on complicated issues, Sen. Hatch said. ""For example, our defense and military leaders have made clear that spending levels under the Budget Control Act are not enough to meet the challenges our nation faces on the world stage. Between the threat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and our newly-prolonged troop presence in Afghanistan, now is not the time to underfund our military. The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is below: Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the legislation that passed in the House last night and that I expect well be voting on soon here in the Senate. Anyone who hasnt been living in a cave for the past few weeks is aware of the controversy surrounding this legislation. However, while the bill is likely no ones idea of an ideal path forward, I believe the controversy stems more from political considerations than from policy or substance. Let me say one thing up front: I dont love this legislation. If we were living in the United States of Orrin Hatch, this bill would look very, very different. But, while I may not like parts of this deal very much, there are other things that I like much less, including political brinksmanship on important matters and election-year posturing on complicated issues. This budget deal, while far from perfect, will help eliminate several hurdles that must be overcome in the near term, and hopefully allow Congress to function and actually govern over the next year. That said, there are some very important provisions in this bill that I think will be counted as wins for good government and will help us address some important issues. So, Id like to take a few minutes and talk about some of the specifics of this legislation and why I believe these provisions are important. First, as we all know, the bill would suspend the statutory debt limit through mid-March of 2017. Ive heard a number of my colleagues decry this provision, arguing that any increase in the debt limit should be accompanied by fiscal reforms. And, on that count, my colleagues are right. Mr. President, I think youd be hard-pressed to find many members of this chamber who have spent more time than I have talking about our nations debt and calling for reforms. Ive spoken extensively about the need to rein in our broken entitlement programs which are the main drivers of our debt -- and, unlike most members of Congress, I have actually come up with specific proposals that would help stave off the growing entitlement crisis. On top of that, as the chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the debt limit, I have repeatedly called on the Obama Administration to do what past administrations have done, which is to use debt-limit increases as opportunities to reexamine our fiscal situation and work with Congress to find a path toward reforms that will improve our fiscal outlook. Unfortunately, these calls and similar calls made by other leaders in Congress have largely gone ignored as the administration refuses to even consider fiscal changes in the context of a debt-limit increase. I am as frustrated as anyone here by the refusal of this administration to even engage on this issue. However, the Presidents refusal to be reasonable and to do his job when it comes to our debt is no excuse for Congress failing to do its job and prevent a default. I know that some of my colleagues either dont believe a default would be that bad or that the result of hitting the debt limit could even be classified as a default. I wont delve into the semantics of the issue Ill just say that hitting the debt limit would prevent the government from meeting a large number of its obligations and nothing good and many things that are bad -- will come from that result. No reasonable person would dispute that. In addition, I dont think any reasonable person wants to see Congress push up against debt-limit deadlines multiple times throughout 2016. Mixing a looming possibility of default with election-year posturing and Im talking about posturing on both sides of the aisle, by the way is, in my view, a recipe for disaster. So, the budget bill will suspend the debt limit and spare Congress and the American people the spectacle of ticking debt clocks in the middle of an election season. Once again, this isnt my preferred result, but it is much, much better than the alternative. In addition to raising the debt limit, the bill would extend the life of the Social Security Disability Insurance or SSDI Trust Fund through a temporary reallocation of resources from the retirement trust fund into the DI program. As we all know, the SSDI trust fund is set to be exhausted sometime late next year, which would lead to benefit cuts of around 20 percent for disabled Americans. Right now, beneficiaries in the disability program face enormous uncertainty and that will only get worse between now and the end of 2016 if Congress fails to act. I have been urging action on this issue for quite some time now, and have put forward a number of proposals to reform various aspects of the disability insurance program. Sadly, despite many calls for bipartisan cooperation the administration has decided to remain silent, aside from a very simple and overly broad reallocation proposal. Nonetheless, this budget bill will, as I mentioned, provide an inter-fund reallocation that will add an additional six years of viability to the SSDI trust fund, preventing benefit cuts to disabled American workers and removing the current uncertainty. But, thats not all. The bill would also put in place reforms to the SSDI program, including some of the proposals that I put forward earlier this year and reflecting a great deal of work between Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Sam Johnson who chairs the Social Security Subcommittee and myself. Our work led to a number of features of the budget bills treatment of SSDI that will help combat fraud in the program, make it easier for those who can and desire to return to work to be able to do so, and improve the overall administration and integrity of the disability program. Mr. President, as I said before, this is not the budget bill that I would have written, and I think there are a number of other ways to improve the SSDI program and Social Security more generally. However, nothing in this bill prevents us from continuing to work to continue to develop and refine ideas and come up with additional improvements. Given the unsustainability of the Social Security system generally, we will have to continue to work on reforms to ensure these programs are available to future generations. For now, we must be realistic: If we dont act now to prevent next years benefit cuts, we will create a cliff that will occur right in the middle of an election campaign when fundamental reforms to an entitlement program will be virtually impossible. Instead of a real debate over the future of this important program, wed see accusations lobbed back and forth about which side is responsible for the impending benefit cuts. Why would anyone want that, Mr. President? What good would it accomplish? Id also like to remind my colleagues that the SSDI reforms in this budget bill represent the most significant changes to any Social Security program since 1983 more than three decades ago. That is nothing to sneeze at. So, while critics may be right that these changes arent the only type of long-term fixes the SSDI program needs, they should not, by any means, be overlooked. While were on the subject of entitlements, I also want to point out that this budget bill will avert an unprecedented and large increase in Medicare Part B premiums for millions of elderly Americans. Under the law, there is a complicated interplay between the Social Security and Medicare programs where, under what is called the hold harmless rule, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries cannot see a premium increase greater than their cost-of-living adjustment under Social Security. However, due to very low inflation, there will be no cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security in 2016, meaning there can be no premium increases for the majority Medicare Part B participants. This means that the full amount of what the Medicare system needs to collect in Part B premiums for next year will be charged to the nearly 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who do not have their premiums deducted their Social Security payments. Long story short, absent some kind of action, more than a quarter of all Medicare Part B beneficiaries will see their premiums go up by as much as 52 percent in 2016. The legislation before us will prevent this increase, once again allowing Congress to avoid a contentious fight and preventing many seniors from becoming pawns in the unending liberal political gamesmanship and demagoguery. Most importantly, it would do so in a responsible manner. In addition to sparing our country some needless political fights over Social Security and Medicare, this bill would also repeal the employer auto-enrollment requirement under the so-called Affordable Care Act. This provision, once implemented, would require large employers to automatically enroll new employees in health insurance plans, putting the burden on employees who prefer alternative plans to opt-out. This provision, like many provisions of Obamacare, never made sense and ultimately had few champions outside left-leaning think tanks that continually advocate for the government to nudge citizens into what some technocrats believe are preferred outcomes by removing certain non-preferred choices. So, with this legislation, we have bipartisan agreement on the need to remove at least part and not an insignificant part of Obamacare. Obviously, we need to do more, but, in my view, any acknowledgement from my friends on the other side that any part of the Presidents health law doesnt work is good progress. Finally, and, for many, most significantly, the bipartisan budget legislation would partially lift the budget caps established under Budget Control Act, both for domestic spending priorities and national defense. And, while very few people in Congress or elsewhere are big fans of the sequester threat, it did result in really the only legitimate, measurable spending cuts weve seen in quite some time, and is especially noteworthy given the current administrations seemingly insatiable desire for more debt-fueled spending. I sympathize with my colleagues who might be hesitant to lift those spending caps. However, I think we need to keep a few things in mind. First, the increase in the spending baseline under the bill is fully offset. And, while not all of the offsets are ideal, its important that the spending-cap relief will not result in increased debt or a tax hike. In that sense, the spending caps, even with the relief included in this bill, continue to be successful. Second, lifting the spending caps will help us ensure our military is properly funded. Many members of Congress, particularly on the Republican side, have expressed concern regarding the impact of the spending caps on our men and women in uniform and our overall military readiness. Make no mistake, these are dangerous times. American generals and military officials have made clear that the spending levels under the Budget Control Act are not enough to meet the challenges our nation faces on the world stage. Between the threat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and our newly-prolonged troop presence in Afghanistan, now is not the time to underfund our military. We need to be sure our troops have all the resources they need to succeed. As we know, President Obama has conditioned any budget-cap relief for defense on similar relief for other domestic spending programs. And, while I agree with many of my colleagues that this represents an odd set of priorities for a Commander-in-Chief, we should not let the Presidents refusal to do right by our military lead us to do the same. In addition to criticisms of the substance of the bill some of which I agree with Ive also heard complaints about the process that led us here. And, on that front as well, I share some of my colleagues concerns. It certainly would have been better to move this legislation through regular order, including committee consideration and an open amendment process. I cant speak for anyone else, but Id assume that almost everyone involved would prefer to see legislation of this magnitude move through the House and Senate in a more deliberative process and a longer timetable. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, that is not what happened. However, much of the time, effective government is about the art of doing whats doable. Though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, there is a Democrat in the White House and enough Democrats in the Senate to sustain a filibuster. Thats just a fact. If we want to get anything done around here, we cannot demand perfection, nor can we operate in a zero-sum environment where every victory for the other side however minor is considered a loss for yours. I get that there are some who sincerely and truthfully believe that compromise inherently means failure. And, I know that there are others with different agendas in mind that lead them to oppose anything resembling a concession to the other side, no matter what their side may get in return. But, Ive been around here long enough to know that such an approach doesnt often yield satisfactory results. If youre going to wait for that perfect bill to come around, my experience has taught me that youre likely to wait a very, very long time. Mr. President, the budget bill before us is far from perfect. But, as the saying goes, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Under the circumstances, I believe this bill needs to pass so that we can solve these problems, remove many dangerous obstacles that are directly in front of us, and give ourselves a chance to govern effectively without the cliffs, crises, and deadlines that all too frequently dictate what we do around here. For these reasons, I plan to vote yes on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=1b2ae26e-0691-4965-bd07-1ca6997849ad,Hatch Invites Utah Expert to Testify on Poverty Efforts,2015-10-29,2015,2015-10,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"As Utah continues to develop a growingly impressive national profile for economic success, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing today to shed light on the states efforts to relieve poverty by promoting self-sufficiency. Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the Chairman of the committee, invited Jon Pierpont, the Executive Director of Utahs Department of Workforce Services to testify on what has worked in Utah.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z