url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=F44DB8C2-04DA-45B7-B41E-A14B9EA69740,Hatch's Top 10 of 2017,2017-12-31,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"As the year comes to a close, take a look at the top 10 things Senator Hatch did in 2017. 10. Senator Hatch's teen suicide prevention bill advanced: 9. Senator Hatch's RAPID DNA bill was signed into law: 8. Senator Hatch introduced a bill to help teachers pay off their student loan debt, so that the best teachers in our Utah schools can afford to stay there: 7. Senator Hatch showed where he stands on white supremacy in Charlottesville: 6. Senator Hatch convened a high-level meeting on human trafficking with Ivanka Trump, Operation Underground Railroads Tim Ballard, and a number of his Senate colleagues: 5. We came a step closer to extending Senator Hatch's Childrens Health Insurance Program for another five years. The Senate is likely to pass it in early January: 4. Senator Hatch introduced a bill to make it easier to study the benefits of medical marijuana as a safe, non-addictive alternative to opioids: 3. The President accepted Senator Hatch's invitation to come to Utah to strike a compromise on our national monuments: 2. We confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court: 1.We delivered on a key promise by passing tax reform that will benefit the vast majority of working families in Utah:",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=9EED7596-925F-4FF6-93B0-A9CEFFE29A19,They See You When You Travel,2017-12-27,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Its a Christmas motif almost as ubiquitous as Christmas trees or sleigh bells families and individuals hastily making their way through airports, balancing presents, bags, and children, excited to make their way home to spend Christmas with their loved ones. Theyre concerned with their flight status, the weather in their destination, their luggage making it to the destination, or the likelihood they will get selected for a random TSA pat-down and any other number of travel-related factors. But in 2018, there may be another worry to add to that already long list of travel woes. At some point next year, the Department Homeland Security (DHS) is hoping to implement mandatory facial scans for all people American citizens included who are flying internationally. In fact, theyve already rolled out this invasive practice in a handful of airports this holiday season. This new invasion of Americans' privacy caught the attention of Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), whos own Logan International Airport was one of the airports selected for the rollout. We wrote a letter together to get more information from DHS about this program. There are a number of issues with this program, including that DHS hasnt instituted a way to let travelers know that they will be subjected to this scan before they fly. But more importantly there is no evidence to show that this facial scan actually works. DHS is hoping to use this technology accurately 96% of the time. But even at that rate 1 of 25 travelers would still be misidentified and improperly flagged by DHS. Additional evidence shows gender and ethnicity increase the likelihood of being improperly flagged. But perhaps the biggest concern is how the government will use this accumulated data and whether or not DHS is even allowed to collect it in the first place. As of now, the information is supposedly only shared with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to check for fraud, and then deleted from the DHS database after 14 days. But in our examination of the program, we have not seen satisfactory safeguards that protect this information from being accessed by third party groups or that show these protocols are actually being followed. The Department of Homeland Security is ushering in this program in an attempt to fulfill a Congressional mandate that says a biometric exit program needs to be in place for international travelers. However, they have gone beyond this directive as the mandate passed by Congress did not allow for facial scans to be used on American citizens. For DHS to do this stands in direct conflict with the Constitution and its 4th Amendment protection of privacy. Until the Department of Homeland Security is willing to address these problems and provide myself, Senator Markey, and Congress sufficient evidence to prove the program falls within the constraints of its Congressional mandate, DHS should provide American citizens with a timely Christmas present protecting their rights by not only stopping this programs expansion, but stopping its use entirely.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=E7B3A774-37DA-409A-86CC-594E23BBF40F,A Tax Cut for Working Families,2017-12-27,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The tax cut bill just passed by Congress and signed into law by the president is not perfect. But I voted for it because it will help working families and small businesses, give almost all Americans an immediate pay raise, and create millions of new jobs. But you dont have to take my word for it. In fact, as citizens, you shouldnt take any politicians word for it. And happily, you wont have to. As in any political debate, there has been a lot of overheated speculation about this bill. Some Republicans who opposed my work with Sen. Marco Rubio to change the bill to provide more tax relief directly to working and middle class said that would destroy the bill and crush its chances to spur economic growth. The argument was silly. But so are many of the criticisms of the bill coming from the left. Some Democrats say the bill will only cut taxes for businesses, not individuals. Thats false. The centrist Brookings Institute says the bill will reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018 by an average of $1,600. Some congressional Democrats argued this tax rate reduction plan was the worst bill in American history, apparently forgetting about the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Alien and Sedition Acts. These criticisms are nuts. In total, the bill is estimated to cut some federal taxes by a total of $6.5 trillion over the next ten years, and raise others by $4 trillion over the same period, coming out to a $1.5 trillion tax cut. I am not thrilled about the potential hit to the deficit. But I also believe we cannot tax our way to a balanced budget. The only way to close the deficit is with economic growth and spending discipline. With new jobs, higher wages, and more investment, the larger overall economic pie will give a bigger slice both to American workers and to their government. Over the last two decades, the United States 35 percent corporate tax rate has cost us trillions of dollars in aggregate international investment. The new 20 percent rate in this bill will help bring more of the global economy to our shores, instead of having us send so much of ours overseas. And of course the doubling of the standard deduction and child credit will deliver immediate, substantial tax relief to middle income families. And the good news is, in a few weeks we will be able to ignore the political speculation and rhetoric and just see for ourselves. Now that the bill is law, the IRS will begin to implement the new rules, and paycheck withholding guidelines will change. In another few pay periods, you either will or wont see a raise in your take-home pay. Over the course of the next year, two years, three years, we either will or wont see more Help Wanted signs in business windows. We will or wont see more listings on job-search websites. We will or wont hear about this or that business expanding, opening a new branch or a new plant. The new, $2,000 per-child tax credit which Sen. Rubio and I successfully fought to make available to millions of additional working families wont make raising kids easy. But it will make things like diapers, braces, little league, or piano lessons more affordable again. I voted for this tax bill because I believe it will deliver higher take-home pay, more relief for middle class families, and business tax reform to spur hiring, wage growth, and investment. Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against the bill because they thought it would not do those things. In a few weeks, well start to see in your paychecks, at your office, in your community who was right.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C32968C8-362E-477E-B3D6-AB27FFF5C2B7,Sens. Markey and Lee Query Dept. of Homeland Security on Expansion of Facial Recognition Scanning Programs at U.S. Airports,2017-12-21,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Mike Lee (R-UT), members of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, today called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to answer important questions about its biometric exit program, which is currently operating at nine U.S. international airports. Currently, DHS requires travelers, including U.S. citizens, departing on select international flights to submit to a face scan so that their faces can be compared to a DHS biometric database for identity verification purposes. In their letter, Senator Markey and Lee query DHS about the accuracy, efficacy and transparency of the program. The senators highlight that under DHSs true accept rate goal, there would still be a false denial for one in 25 travelers. That means thousands of travelers could be wrongfully denied boarding each day. We are concerned that the use of the program on U.S. citizens remains facially unauthorized,write Senators Markey and Lee to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielson.We request that DHS stop the expansion of this program and provide Congress with its explicit statutory authority to use and expand a biometric exit program on U.S. citizens. A copy of the letter can be foundHERE. Specifically, the Senators request more information from DHS on accuracy concerns and potential flaws in the scanning technology, how the program will not unduly burden travelers, including certain races or gender, how the program is improving visa overstay travel fraud, and the authority of DHS to expand the program when Congress has intentionally not authorized biometric exit scanning for U.S. citizens. Today, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law Center issued a report that revealed that while Congress has on nine separate occasions called on DHS to establish a biometric exit program to verify the identities of foreign nationals as they leave the country, Congress has not authorized face scans of American citizens. DHS also has not established rules governing the program. DHS also does not know whether it wrongly rejects people at higher rates as a result of their race or gender.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=56249602-E58A-4697-AB3A-33BFC5FB1536,Sen. Lee Statement on Final Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,2017-12-20,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement today after final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. American working families deserve a tax cut and this bill delivers it to them, Sen. Lee said. According to the left of center Tax Policy Center, this bill will reduce taxes for all income groups in 2018 by an average of $1,600. And according to The Washington Post, a Utah family with two kids making the median $62,000 a year would see a $1,675 tax cut. Delivering more take home pay for these working Utahn families is why I voted for this bill. Now there is still a lot to be done. First and foremost we need to work with Democrats to make these middle-class tax cuts permanent. Second, we can do even more for lower-income working families by making the expanded Child Tax Credit in this bill fully refundable up to payroll tax liability. I stand ready to work with anybody to make sure working American families are treated fairly by our tax code.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=755,Rep. Love Votes for Final Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,2017-12-19,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C. -- Rep. Mia Love voted with the majority in the House of Representatives for final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by approving theConference report to accompany H.R. 1. After passage of the Conference Report, Congresswoman Love issued the following statement: This is a historic moment for Utahns and for the American people. The House of Representatives approved H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first update to our tax code in 31 years. The unified tax plan addresses three of my priorities: More jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks. We did this while keeping important deductions for state and local income taxes and property taxes, expanding the child tax credit, and maintaining home mortgage and student loan interest deductions. This bill will also grow both the Utah and U.S. economy to make our businesses more competitive. Utahns will see higher wages, lower taxes, a simpler system and a stronger economy under this plan, and Im proud to support it. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-final-passage-tax-cut-and-jobs-act,Bishop Votes for Final Passage of Tax Cut and Jobs Act,2017-12-19,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON The US House of Representatives has voted for final passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by approving the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1. Following passage of the Conference Report, Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement: Passage of this bill will mean great savings for Americas middle class families. The expansion of the child tax credit is in line with Utah values and American Ideals. Additionally, this bill will encourage wage growth and job creation in the Beehive State, and the tax system in America is now on its way to becoming more fair and simple. Todays vote is not the end of a story, but rather the beginning of great efforts in the House to continue simplifying the American tax code.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/tax-reform-conference-report-passes-house,Tax Reform Conference Report Passes House,2017-12-19,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement after voting in favor of the House-Senate conference committee report to accompany the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Today, we made history by passing the largest overhaul of tax reform since 1986. The new tax code is simple, fair, and focused on helping the American people by creating more jobs and bigger paychecks. It will change lives, energize our country, and get our economy thriving again. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=754,Rep. Love Pushes to Advance Sexual Harassment Bill,2017-12-18,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C. -- As momentum builds to take action on sexual harassment on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Mia Love's STOP Act now includes protection for victims. The Stop Taxpayer Obligation for Perpetrators Act would stop the practice of making payments, funded with taxpayer dollars, to settle these cases on behalf of members of Congress. A new bill would also allow for compensation for victims of sexual harassment, but ensures that compensation is not made with taxpayer money. ""Taxpayers should not be paying to settle theses case, just because the accused happens to be a member of Congress,"" Rep. Love said. ""If someone behaves badly, the consequences to those actions are that person's responsibility and no one else's."" Thanks to Rep. Love's work, the updated STOP Act is currently a priority in the House of Representatives. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7A8A63B0-09FD-45B0-9489-4610D9F9233A,DEA Contradicts One-Sided Washington Post Report . . . About the DEA,2017-12-16,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"This weekend the Washington Post released a follow-up to its investigation in October about legislation related to DEAs enforcement authority and the opioid crisis. In that original report, the Washington Post alleged that PhRMAthe drug manufacturing industrys lobbying armused campaign donations to press members of Congress to pass legislation that gutted DEAs ability to fight the opioid epidemic. Not only was the claim that PhRMA pushed for the bill entirely false, but as Senator Hatch, one of the bill sponsors, later made clear, the specific language in the bill that the Washington Post alleged was so problematic was written and provided to Congress by DEA and DOJ attorneys. This week the Senate held an oversight hearing on bill, known as the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, and members had an opportunity to ask Demetra Ashley, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Diversion Control at DEA, about the bills impact. Ms. Ashley stated categorically that the legislation has not impeded DEAs ability to do its job and that the legislation has not caused a decline in DEAs enforcement efforts. After the hearing, the Washington Post reported the exact opposite of what DEA said. In a follow-up piece after the hearing, the Washington Post reported: The measure curbed the DEAs powers to use its most potent weapons against drug companies that do not report suspicious orders of prescription painkillers from pharmacies. However, in the hearing itself, Ms. Ashley said the exact opposite: Hatch: Is there any conceivable way that the Act could have caused the decline in ISOs? Ashley: Senator, this is a tool [immediate suspension orders] that DEA has historically used sparingly. Again, we move forward with where the evidence takes us. Now theyve been used sparingly, but theyve also been used for the most partpredominantly for physicians and also for pharmacies. Its a difficult challenge to connect a distributor and immediate... Hatch: Maam, I was asking for a yes or no answer. Ashley: Has it changed? Has it impacted our ability to doto issue ISOs? No, sir, it has not. Note that In addition to testifying that the legislation has not impacted DEAs ability to issue ISOs, Ms. Ashley emphasized that DEA has used ISOs sparingly. This stands in stark contrast to the Washington Posts description of ISOs as DEAs most potent tools in the war against the opioid epidemic. Ms. Ashely further clarified that ISOs are used primarily against physicians and pharmacies, not distributors, which have been a particular focus of the Washington Posts criticisms of the bill. Ms. Ashley repeated several times to other Senators at the hearing that the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act has not hamstrung or stopped DEA, and told yet another Senator that the Act has not led DEA to issue fewer ISOs: Senator Durbin:Ms. Ashley tells Senator Durbin that theActhas not hamstrung DEAs efforts https://youtu.be/n4I_BpN4wYw Senator Grassley:In an exchange with Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, Ms. Ashley testifies that theActhas not stopped DEA from doing its job.https://youtu.be/NkkNDmjWeeE Senator Klobuchar: In a discussion with Senator Klobuchar, Ms. Ashley says DEA would not have issued more ISOs had the Act not been passed. Ms. Ashley also notes the array of other enforcement tools at DEAs disposal, tools the Washington Post has largely ignored in its reporting. https://youtu.be/u14fyGJEL7I; https://youtu.be/b06sJsCfTY0 The Washington Posts story relies on disgruntled former DEA employees, some of whom are now working as consultants to trial lawyers suing the drug industry and thus have an obvious conflict of interest in pushing the Posts narrative. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Post has chosen not to highlight this fact. As Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley pointed out in his opening statement at the hearing, The DEA agent who was the centerpiece of the news article is a consultant for trial lawyers who are suing the industry. So his objectivity could be questioned. The sensational news stories failed to question this conflict of interest. Various individuals have also raised questions concerning the DEA agents conduct while at DEA. The Washington Post has portrayed the agent as a martyr who was pushed out under agency pressure. These individuals accounts suggest the story may be more complicated: Letter from VCU medical professor to the Judiciary Committee describing troubling conduct by officials acting under the DEA agents leadership . [LINK] Statement by Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, describing an apparent cavalier attitude toward agency legal requirements [LINK] Letter from 31 patient advocacy groups describing an apparent lack of concern for patient needs [LINK] DEAs testimony at the hearing also made clear that DEA and DOJ both supported the final version of the legislation, a fact the Washington Post has sought to downplay (or even ignore) because it sharply undermines the Posts preferred narrative. Cruz: I just want to understand. So, the Department of Justice supported the legislation in the version that actually passed, is that correct? Ashley: Yes, sir. Cruz: And the DEA supported the legislation in the version that actually passed? Ashley: Yes, sir. Whitehouse: We reached an agreement that DEA signed off on, that was approved by the Administrator, that was approved by the Attorney General of the United States, and on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States was signed into law by the President of the United States. At the hearing, Senator Kennedy asked Ms. Ashley an obvious question that the Washington Post, which has claimed that DEA was violently opposed to the bill and agreed to it only under pressure, has never been able adequately to answer: Kennedy: If everybody was so opposed to it at DEA, why werent they raising all manner of hell? The obvious answer is that DEA wasnt opposed to the bill. To the contrary, as DEAs testimony made clear, DEA supported the final language that ultimately became law. DEA has a legal obligation to provide an analysis of the bill and what recommendations, if any, DEA has for changing the bill. It has not done so. Disgruntled former DEA employees can complain all they want about how the bill should be changed, but current DEA officials are required to submit recommendations about the bill to Congress and they have not done so. Whitehouse: The executive branch, in the form of HHS, which is to be advised by you all at DEA, is under a legal obligation to do an analysis of what changes are needed in this bill and has refused to do so, despite being required to by law. And we have the testimony now of your agency that you have no proposal, despite a recommendation that there be a change. Congress cannot make an informed decision about calls to amend or repeal the bill until DEA fulfills its legal obligation to submit recommendations to Congress. The Washington Post obviously wants to see a particular outcome here. The papers decision to downplay or ignore facts and testimony that undermine its preferred narrative make that much clear. But as Chairman Grassley said in his opening statement at the hearing, We shouldnt be repealing laws just because of the loudest person in the room, and solely based on one persons say-so. Even MORE background Senator Hatch has previously addressed flaws in the reports about this legislation on the Senate floor. [VIDEO] Numerous media outlets have likewise pointed out a number of omissions in the reporting on the bill.[LINK] Patient groups have also written in to express support for the legislation.[LINK] [LINK] In addition, a VCU medical professor has described some of the problems at DEA in the years leading up to the bill Hatch wrote an op-ed in theWashington Postcorrecting a number of errors in reports about the bill and its impact on DEAs enforcement capabilities.[LINK] Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, submitted a statement at the hearing explaining the need for the bill. [LINK]",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=3918BB3F-E799-482E-9204-DCD98C17AFCF,The Rise in Unwed Childbearing,2017-12-15,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Too often, legislators pass bills that seem to be solutions in search of problems. But those problems are rarely as straightforward as they appear to be. This is why my staff at the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) have worked so tirelessly on the Social Capital Project a multi-year research initiative that explores the evolving nature and importance of our associational life, specifically why the health of those associational relationships seems so compromised. And of all the relationships people have in their lives, the most important and formative is the one children have with their parents. This relationship is the foundation of a healthy associational life, which is why the JECs most recent study focused on parent/child relationships and how theyve changed in the last few generations. As many of you already know, there has been a significant uptick in children born to unwed parents since 1960. And numerous studies show children of stable, married couples outperform children born to single parents, especially when it comes to laying the foundation for engagement in associational life. This isnt to say a child born to single mother or father will necessarily face more challenges in life, or that a child born to a married mother and father will automatically succeed. But there is a statistically significant pattern that shows having two stable parents in a committed relationship does give a child a leg up. Yet, in the past few decades, weve shifted from this two-parent model of child-bearing. In 1960, just 5.3% of children were born to single mothers. As of 2008, that number jumped to 40%, and that number is even higher for children born to mothers who are under 30. This means 35% more of the children born today are born into a situation that disadvantages them. While it would be simple to point to increased sexual activity as the obvious cause, our research found two even larger factors: 1) there are fewer married women, and 2) the cultural norm often referred to as the shotgun marriage has all but disappeared. The causes for these two trends are also very complicated, but they appear to be a result of an increase in affluence and opportunity in society as a whole. Rising affluence and opportunity is absolutely something we should celebrate, but that doesnt negate the fact that the uptick in non-married births is something that should be addressed. Problems are rarely as straightforward as they appear to be. I am proud of the work my staff on the JEC is doing to shine a light on the complexities of this issue, and we will continue to pursue this line of inquiry to ensure all children are born with the leg up they deserve.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=8A6C64E3-4E21-47AC-949F-BA0B7A4F79A8,We need a HERO: Our plan to fix higher education,2017-12-15,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The dawn of the 21st century has brought tremendous opportunities and changes to our economy. One consequence is that everyone needs some kind of education after high school. Yet only four in ten Americans achieve an associates degree or higher. Its a new game, and its essential that all citizens can still pursue their American dreams. We need a higher education system that works better for more Americans and their families. We can begin this process by focusing on four key reform principles: affordability, transparency, accountability, and innovation. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act, introduced in the Senate this past week. With respect to affordability, between 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439 percent, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. And costs have only continued to rise in the past decade. The typical solution to the unaffordability problem has been to increase the amount and types of loans that students can access, but this solution has actually contributed to the exponential rise in tuition rates. In 2015, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a study that found a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar. This means that for every additional dollar the federal government allows students to borrow, colleges and universities increase their tuition by 60 cents, thus increasing the number of students who need loans to afford college in the first place. The HERO Act would address the affordability issue by streamlining the current duplicative menu of student loan programs into one option and creating one repayment period for undergraduate loans and another for graduate loans. Additionally, the act would establish caps on loan amounts, to keep university rate increases in check and lower the amount of debt students need to repay once they graduate from college. HERO's second aim is to improve transparency in higher education. When it comes to choosing a good college and major, parents and students are often left to make these life-changing decisions in the dark. The HERO Act would ensure that parents and students have access to information about how effective their college of choice is in helping students graduate on time; how burdened by debt students are after obtaining their degrees; and how successful graduates in a particular major are at obtaining jobs that enable them to pay back their loans. Next comes accountability. Nearly half of borrowers today are not making payments on their student loans. This alarming statistic is one of the reasons some economists have predicted that student loans are the next financial bubble. It is time for a change. One promising solution is to make sure that all parties in higher education have skin in the game. The HERO Act would ensure that colleges have a financial stake in their programs by requiring schools with poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fine. The possibility of a penalty would motivate schools to invest in the success of their students. Finally, HERO aims to encourage innovation. Todays post-secondary students come from a range of different backgrounds, from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mom going back to school, to the laid-off worker who needs to retrain mid-career. Meeting the needs of this diverse population means we need a lot more options than we did when current federal policies were first written decades ago. The HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation. Todays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare them for the challenges and opportunities of todays job market. The HERO Act is an important first step toward building that new system. It would open the door to the American Dream for the millions of Americans who are pursuing it. Op-ed originally published in the Washington Examiner",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=FFB4B299-DE05-486B-8060-AD99989258B5,"Mike Lee, Mia Love: It's time to modernize higher education",2017-12-15,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"From our states earliest days, Utah has placed a high value on education. It is part of our cultural DNA. So its not totally surprising that when it comes to higher education, Utah is getting a lot of things right. For example, Utahs tuition rates are the fourth lowest in the nation. Our state has the lowest average student debt. And it enjoys an impressive network of private and public universities, technical colleges and alternative education options. These positive data points directly contribute to Utahs status as the most upwardly mobile state in the union. However, troubling nationwide statistics continue to overshadow, and negatively influence, our positive statewide figures. Here are just a few of those numbers: Between 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439 percent. The average borrower now finishes college with $28,000 in debt. 70 percent of students now need to borrow to afford college. 25 percent of student loan borrowers are struggling to repay their debt or are in default. Only 55 percent of students who start college finish with a degree. Clearly, we can improve upon the status quo. Given rapidly changing economic dynamics, we must. Utahs past success indicates we can lead the way in creating a more innovative system of higher education. This will require reforms that foster greater accountability, affordability, transparency and adaptability. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act, introduced recently in both the U.S. House and Senate. The HERO Act recognizes that todays postsecondary students come from diverse backgrounds from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mother, to the laid-off worker requiring mid-career training. It gives power to individual states to create alternative accreditation paths that will open doors to innovative new education options (i.e., massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, or certification exams) tailored to individual student needs. This will help students acquire the skills that employers need without necessarily having to finance a traditional four-year degree. Additionally, the bill enhances transparency by providing students with data regarding their education options. Specifically, it would provide students with data reflecting how effective their school of choice is at helping students graduate on time, how significant the average graduates student loan debt is, and how successful graduates from each major are at obtaining a job that enables them to quickly pay back any student loan debt. Finally, the HERO Act improves accountability by requiring schools that have poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fee, thus incentivizing them to fully invest in the future success of their students. Todays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare these learners for the challenges and opportunities in todays job market. The HERO Act is a real Utah solution and an important first step toward building that system and by so doing creates a more open door to the American Dream and the millions of Americans who are pursuing it. Op-ed originally published in the Deseret News",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=AEEEACFF-C0B4-4C1E-B7BF-8392892B67FD,Higher Education Needs a HERO,2017-12-15,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The dawn of the 21st century has brought tremendous opportunities and changes to our economy. Everyone now needs some kind of education after high school. Yet, only four in ten Americans achieve an associates degree or higher. Its a new game, and its essential that all citizens can still pursue their American dreams. We need a higher education system that works better for more Americans and their families. We can begin this process by focusing on four key reform principles: accountability, affordability, transparency, and innovation. These principles are at the heart of the Higher Education Reform Opportunity (HERO) Act introduced in the Senate this past week. Affordability Between 1982 and 2007, the average cost of a four-year college education rose by 439%, according to the biennial report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Educationand costs have only continued to rise in the past decade. The typical solution to the unaffordability problem has been to increase the amount and types of loans that students can access. However, this solution has actually contributed to the exponential rise in tuition rates. In 2015, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued a study that found a pass-through effect on tuition of changes in subsidized loan maximums of about 60 cents on the dollar. This means that for every additional dollar the federal government allows students to borrow, colleges and universities increase their tuition by 60 cents, thus increasing the number of students who need loans to afford college in the first place. The HERO Act would address the affordability issue by streamlining the current duplicative menu of student loan programs into one option and creating one repayment period for undergraduate loans and another for graduate loans. Additionally, the act would establish caps on loan amounts, which would help to keep university rate increases in check and lower the amount of debt students need to repay once they graduate from college. Transparency Informed consumers are a critical component of a free-market economy. Yet when it comes to choosing a good college and major, parents and students are often left to make these life-changing decisions in the dark. The HERO Act would ensure that parents and students have access to information about how effective their college of choice is in helping students graduate on time; how burdened by debt students are after obtaining their degrees; and how successful graduates in a particular major are at obtaining jobs that enable them to pay back their loans. Accountability Nearly half of borrowers today are not making payments on their student loans. This alarming statistic is one of the reasons some economists have predicted that student loans are the next financial bubble. It is time for a change. One promising solution is to make sure that all parties in higher education have skin in the game. The HERO Act would ensure that colleges have a financial stake in their programs by requiring schools with poor student loan repayment rates to pay a fine. The possibility of a penalty would motivate schools to invest in the success of their students. Innovation Todays post-secondary students come from a range of different backgrounds, from the traditional 18-year-old high school graduate, to the single mom going back to school, to the laid-off worker who needs to retrain mid-career. Meeting the needs of this diverse population means we need a lot more options than we did when current federal policies were first written decades ago. The HERO Act would accomplish this by changing the way schools are accredited. The HERO Act would enable each state to accredit any institution that provides post-secondary education. With this new accreditation power, states would be able to authorize innovative new education options (for example, massive online open courses, competency-based offerings, and certification exams) for students in any learning situation. Todays students deserve an innovative higher education system that provides more and better options to prepare them for the challenges and opportunities of todays job market. The HERO Act is an important first step toward building that new system. It would open the door to the American Dream for the millions of Americans who are pursuing it.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=751,Statement on Net Neutrality,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"""A permanent solution to Net Neutrality needs to be decided by Congress.  This game of regulatory ping pong should not be played with the Internet."" ""That is why I have been working and will continue to work with the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, Greg Walden and his staff to find a legislative solution that will preventing blocking, throttling or unfair interconnection practices"".   ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ContentRecord_id=FF93C505-AFA3-4DF1-95EF-6097A56BDD31,Net Neutrality Regulation Floor Speech,2017-12-14,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Mr. President, Earlier today the FCC voted to reverse a major impediment to a free and open Internet: The Title Two Internet regulations that were imposed under President Obama in 2015. These regulations are commonly called “Net Neutrality,” so for the sake of convenience that is what I’ll call them. I want to congratulate FCC Chairman Ajit Pai for this brave accomplishment. He has fought for what he knows is right in the face of tremendous pressure. I also want to use this opportunity to correct the record about what the FCC actually has accomplished. Because there is an astonishing amount of misinformation and hyperbole surrounding this matter. If you believe the passionate voices defending these regulations, then you may think the FCC just jeopardized the Internet that we all know and love—and sometimes loathe. These activists paint a scary vision of America without Net Neutrality. . . . A vision where large Internet Service Providers prey on ordinary consumers and startups. . . . Where Internet access would be rationed or bundled up in expensive packages. . . . One viral tweet even suggested that Google would start charging two bucks apiece for Internet searches! These are falsehoods, and they will be exposed as such over the next few months, when the Internet hums along like usual and the skyscrapers in all our major cities remain standing. We will look back on these dire predictions as hysterics, like Y2K or the Mayan Apocalypse of 2012. But in the present, these exaggerations have real-world consequences besides scaring the public. In the last six months, Chairman Pai and his family have been attacked in the grossest terms. Even his children have been singled out for intimidation. These kinds of attacks have no place in our discourse. So why don’t we tone down the rhetoric and see if we can’t get to the truth about Net Neutrality. We can start with a little background. In 2015, the Democrat-controlled FCC issued the so-called “Open Internet Order.” This order made dramatic changes to how the Internet was classified for purposes of regulation. Until 2015, broadband Internet was classified as an “information service.” As such, it was subject to “light-touch” regulations that allowed innovators to build without seeking permission from the government. This classification was common sense and reflected the intent of Congress. The Internet is a fast-moving information superhighway. If slow-moving government regulators got involved decades ago, it could have inhibited innovation that keeps service fast and prices low for all Americans. Not only was this a common-sense arrangement, it facilitated a “virtual renaissance” of innovation and discovery. This renaissance gave us things like smartphones, ride-sharing, and super-fast fiber optic Internet. It gave us 3G . . . then 4G . . . and soon 5G wireless service! And yes, this period also gave us Twitter. So it wasn’t all good. But overall, the light-touch regulatory arrangement worked pretty well—for ordinary users, big companies, and entrepreneurs just starting out in their garages. Contrary to Net Neutrality’s rabid defenders, the Internet of 2014 was not some sort of hellscape. It was actually pretty awesome. The FCC threatened all that in 2015, when it reclassified broadband Internet as a “telecommunications service.” This innocuous-sounding change subjected the Internet to a host of regulations that were originally meant for New Deal-era telephone monopolies like Ma Bell. In essence, the government imposed 1930s-style regulations on 21st-century technology. This outdated arrangement has worked about as well as we would expect: Broadband Internet investment has fallen significantly since the Net Neutrality regulations were proposed in 2011. Dr. George Ford of the Phoenix Center estimates that between 2011 and 2015, just the threat of regulation scared off $200 billion in investment. And since the regulations were imposed in 2015, broadband Internet investment has declined by 5.6% —that’s billions of lost dollars over just two years. As Chairman Pai has noted, this is the first-ever decline in broadband investment outside of a recession. And this recession just so happens to be self-imposed! It may not seem like a big deal to you that government is squeezing out billions in Internet investment. But it hurts you and your fellow citizens in material ways. Less investment means less fiber-optic cable . . . fewer towers and Wi-Fi hotspots. And this translates into spottier coverage and slower speeds for Americans—especially those living on the periphery of society, in poverty or in rural areas. FCC regulations make it harder for these Americans to have equal access to the Internet. These regulations also have entrenched the market power of large Internet Service Providers while hurting their smaller competitors. By their very nature, regulations impose conformity on a market. They limit companies’ ability to distinguish themselves from their rivals by offering innovative services. This works out fine for the companies at the top. They’ve already made it. They can kick back without worrying about some young punk coming along and changing the game. It works out less well for the young punks—the startups that want to win customers away from old-school companies. That’s how it works in theory, at least. And there’s good evidence that’s what is happening in practice. Small ISPs have been far more critical of Net Neutrality regulations than large ISPs. A group of two-dozen small Internet providers recently wrote that the regulations hang “like a black cloud” over their businesses, “slowing” or even halting their deployment of new technology. Likewise, 19 municipal Internet providers told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off” on introducing new services because they cannot afford a potential complaint. Internet providers that serve predominantly rural areas have voiced similar concerns, reporting that they have reduced network expansion in parts of the country that are already underserved. These examples show that Net Neutrality regulations are harming competition and increasing the consolidation of power in the Internet industry, not decreasing it. Internet regulations have in effect sheltered large ISPs from competition and from the need to change. Be sure to think about that the next time you’re on hold with customer support. As Americans chart a path forward in the coming years, we will face an important choice: Do we want an Internet run by regulators, or an Internet run by innovators? The innovators have a strong track record over the last thirty years, so I know who I’m siding with. How can we empower them? And more importantly, how can we empower the millions of families who rely on fast and reliable Internet service each and every day? The FCC did its part today by repealing Net Neutrality and returning to the regulatory framework that governed the Internet successfully until 2015. This move reclassifies the Internet as an information service, but it goes beyond that as well. The FCC will require every ISP to disclose information about their network management practices. If these companies block or throttle Web traffic, rest assured the public will know about it. And importantly, this order restores enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers from “unfair or deceptive” practices. The FTC had policed the Internet successfully for years prior to 2015. Now the cop is back on the beat. The FCC’s action today is a return to normalcy for the Internet. But we should not rest easy. A future administration could undo all Chairman Pai’s hard work at a moment’s notice, if Congress does not act to solidify his accomplishment. Over the summer, I introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would prohibit the FCC from imposing utility-style regulations on the Internet ever again. Passing this act would give companies the regulatory certainty they need to invest in improvements for their customers. We should not discount how important Congress can be in determining the success—or failure—of things like the Internet. In 1996, President Clinton and Congress inaugurated the “light-touch” regulation of the Internet. They wanted the information superhighway to be “unfettered by Federal or State regulations.” They were rewarded with a tremendous outpouring of innovation that has improved the lives of practically every American. I say we emulate their wise example, and see what free men and women can invent in the next twenty years. Thank you.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=748,"Josh Holt Facing Trial, Health Declining & Denied Treatment",2017-12-13,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C -- On December 12, 2017 a Venezuelan judge ordered Josh Holt to stand trial on trumped-up weapons charges.    After 18 months and repeated procedural delays in his case, this latest development is evidence the case is being politiczed by President Nicolas Maduro's socialst government in an effort to retaliate against the U.S. economic sanctions.  Rep. Love says: ""I am outraged at the way Joshua Holt has been treated in Venezuela the entire time since his arrest.  He has been denied due process and proper justice.  His health has declined, and he's been denied proper medical treatment.  I demand Joshua Holt be released immediately, and I will continue to fight to make that happen.  This has been devastating time for the Holt family, and my heart goes out to them.""   ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=93E1BB22-AD80-41AE-9929-43F5F32137C3,Hatch Praises Nominee for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Role,2017-12-13,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)—a member and former Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and a longtime champion for Americans with disabilities—issued the following statement in support of Johnny Collett, the President’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services at the Department of Education. The HELP Committee advanced Mr. Collett’s nomination earlier this evening: Mr. Collett is a superbly qualified nominee with over 15 years of experience supporting students with disabilities. His track record speaks for itself, and I’m confident that his years of experience as a special education teacher, as a State Director of Special Education, and as the Director of Special Education Outcomes at the Council of Chief State School Officers makes him uniquely qualified to lead this office. As Assistant Secretary, he will continue supporting the needs of students with disabilities. This is a critically important position, and having a strong, qualified nominee to serve in this role is vital to ensure that all students have the opportunity to reach their full academic potential. Throughout my term of service, I have championed an even playing field in education for students with disabilities. I was an author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and just this year, I co-authored the Respond, Innovate, Support, and Empower Students with Disabilities Act. I also sponsored the Accessible Instructional Materials in Higher Education Act to ensure proper accommodations for students with disabilities in higher education. Johnny Collett has my full confidence, and I look forward to supporting his nomination when it moves to the Senate floor for a vote.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=4C1434C4-1BB6-435F-AD5B-B2A58703FD13,"In Judiciary Hearing, Bipartisan Senators Set Record Straight on DEA/Opioid Legislation",2017-12-12,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC—This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to review the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act—a bill that was passed in the previous Congress to clarify the Drug Enforcement Administration’s enforcement authority with regard to the medicine supply chain. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), addressed a flaw in the system that gave the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) Office of Diversion Control undefined authority cut off prescription supply chains without warning, thereby threatening access to lifesaving treatment. The benefits of this proposal were almost entirely overlooked in a one-sided Washington Post report that misrepresented the law’s intent and the process by which it was passed. The same report additionally downplayed the overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, which passed Congress with unanimous support and was signed by President Obama on the advice of his own DEA. In setting the record straight, Hatch noted that the very phrase that the news report claims “gutted DEA’s enforcement authority” actually came from agency lawyers. At today’s hearing, Hatch and other members of the panel had the opportunity to ask Demetra Ashley—the Acting Assistant Administrator for Diversion Control at DEA—about the bill’s impact and to rebut claims that the bill has impeded DEA’s ability to do its job. Senator Hatch also took the opportunity to explain the pressing need for the legislation, a key point that has been lost in the one-sided reporting on the bill. Senators Hatch and Whitehouse Set the Record Straight on their Legislation Clarifying DEA Rules In subsequent questions with Senators Hatch and Whitehouse, Acting Assistant Administrator Ashley made clear that Senator Hatch and Senator Whitehouse’s legislation had not caused a decline in DEA enforcement efforts. [VIDEO] Click here for copies of the two charts Senator Hatch referenced in his questions. [LINK] Senator Hatch has previously addressed flaws in the reports about this legislation on the Senate floor. [VIDEO] Numerous media outlets have likewise pointed out a number of omissions in the reporting on the bill. [LINK] Patient groups have also written in to express support for the legislation. [LINK] [LINK] In addition, a VCU medical professor has described some of the problems at DEA in the years leading up to the bill. [LINK] Hatch wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post correcting a number of errors in reports about the bill and its impact on DEA’s enforcement capabilities. [LINK] Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, submitted a statement at the hearing explaining the need for the bill. [LINK] Senator Hatch’s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for allowing me to make a statement. Too often in this town, narrative gets ahead of facts. A newspaper prints an explosive headline, and it’s off to the races. It doesn’t matter what the actual facts are. The bandwagon starts rolling, and everyone wants on, or off, as the case may be. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I was both surprised and disappointed by how quickly everyone seemed to start running from this bill the moment some negative news reports came out. From Senator McCaskill to Senator Manchin to Attorney General Sessions, it seems like everyone’s trying to wash their hands of it. But no one ever told me they were dubious about this bill when it was going through. No one entered a statement of opposition into the record or offered an amendment to change the bill. To the contrary, the bill passed this committee by voice vote and passed the full Senate by unanimous consent. So these last two months have been deeply frustrating to me, Mr. Chairman. I wish some of my colleagues would stop trying to rewrite history or pretend this was some sort of shell game. That’s why I’m glad we’re holding this hearing today. I want to talk about the facts. The facts of this law. The facts of my involvement and of this committee’s involvement. And the facts of the law’s impact. Let’s start with the impetus for this law. This law came about, not because I or anyone else got some giant check, but because of very real concerns that the way DEA was operating was threatening patient access. Representative Marino has said that he became involved after meeting with a community pharmacist in his district who was “having so much trouble obtaining prescription opioids that he had to turn away legitimate patients.” I heard similar concerns from constituents, one of whom will be testifying today. And it wasn’t just Utah and Pennsylvania. Across the nation, pharmacies were facing supply chain problems. A January 2014 survey by the National Community Pharmacists Association found that 75 percent of respondents had experienced three or more problems with stopped shipments in the previous 18 months and that a majority had had to turn patients away as a result. News reports from Indiana to Florida detailed stories of legitimate patients who were having significant difficulty obtaining needed medication. No doubt these supply chain problems had multiple causes, but DEA’s activities were a contributing factor. According to a 2015 GAO report, the lack of clear guidance from DEA to distributors on what constitutes a suspicious order and what can trigger an enforcement action was leading many distributors to place quotas on drug shipments to pharmacies, a practice that the report found can “negatively impact . . . patients’ access.” The report detailed how fear of enforcement actions, coupled with lack of agency guidance, was leading distributors to decline to fill orders even in cases where a distributor had no evidence that a pharmacy or doctor was engaging in diversion. And it wasn’t just lack of guidance. I’ve had a number of individuals tell me that DEA’s attitude toward registrants during this period was downright antagonistic. I have a letter here from a VCU Professor that describes some really troubling conduct by diversion control agents and that explains how difficult he found it to try to work with the agency in good faith. And it wasn’t just the private sector that was having difficulty dealing with DEA, either. In a separate 2015 report about drug shortages, GAO described the great difficulty it had getting information from DEA’s Office of Diversion Control. According to the report, completion of GAO’s work “was delayed significantly because of DEA’s refusal to comply with [GAO’s] requests for information . . . for over a year.” Only after the intervention of “senior DOJ management officials” was GAO able to obtain the data it was seeking. The Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act was an effort to respond to these problems, to provide clearer guidance for supply chain members, and to encourage greater cooperation between DEA and the regulated community. That’s why it defined the agency’s immediate suspension order authority. That’s why it provided for corrective action plans. This wasn’t some effort to help drug companies kill people. Give me a break. This was an effort to ensure that DEA’s praiseworthy efforts to stem abuse don’t end up hurting legitimate patients. Now, I’d like to say a word about how this law came together. I want to be clear right at the outset that this was not a pharma bill. Don’t tell me I did this bill because pharma donated however much money to me. Prior to introduction, Senator Whitehouse and I negotiated with DEA, distributors, and patient advocacy groups. We may have talked to a pharma company at one point or another, but they were not key players. And you know what? The bill Senator Whitehouse and I introduced? DOJ was okay with it. They said so in writing to this committee. Of course, legislating is a process, and after introduction I found it was necessary to make changes in order to move the bill forward. I would have preferred not to, but we all know that legislation requires compromise. And so I had to accommodate some requests from industry stakeholders at the request of other members of this committee. I negotiated these changes with DEA and DOJ. In fact, DOJ gave me the substantial likelihood language that critics now seem so fixated on. And once DEA and I came to a point where we agreed on a path forward, I asked the Chairman to put the bill on a markup. And I kept my end of the bargain. I told other members what DEA had asked me to tell them, and I made the floor and record statements I’d promised DEA I would make. I did all of this in good faith. I later came to find out that notwithstanding our agreement, DEA and DOJ were telling other offices they still had some concerns with the bill. For reasons I don’t understand, they never shared these concerns directly with me. But evidently the concerns weren’t that significant, as DEA didn’t try to stop the bill. As all of us on this committee know, any bill can be stopped by agency opposition. All it takes is one hold. So that’s how we got here. This bill addressed a very real problem, and it did so in a carefully crafted, carefully negotiated way. If DEA has concerns with the bill, I’m happy to hear them. But I’d also ask DEA to explain why those concerns didn’t cause it to stop the bill 18 months ago, before it became law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=A9903730-A29D-4BA4-AF08-700AC3B77C0F,Volokh Conspiracy: Sen. Orrin Hatch on President Trumps appointments to the judiciary,2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By Eugene Volokh [LINK] The office of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) passed along this item, which I thought would be very interesting for our readers, as it tells us something about how Republicans are continuing to argue about judicial appointments; naturally, if a Democratic senator wants to pass along something similar from the other side, I’d love to publish it as well: In Washington, it can sometimes be difficult to focus on what counts. Today’s information environment is increasingly atomized and persistently polarized. Almost all will inevitably focus on who is up, and who is down, in the endless cycle of partisan gamesmanship. But none should forget that what matters, at the end of the day, is policy. And the first year of new Republican government has delivered plenty of that. Here in the Senate, despite fits and starts, we are moving the ball forward. Notwithstanding often vicious treatment by the media and the constant obstruction of the Democrats here in Congress, President Trump is managing his domestic policy agenda like a true leader does: he names his agenda, he picks his team, and he executes. The results speak for themselves. We are closing in on a historic tax reform package, which itself includes an important first step on healthcare reform. Regulatory burdens are falling, as the administrative state faces its first substantial pushback in decades. From labor to environmental to fiscal and monetary policy, from education to justice issues, there’s substantial progress on nearly every front. Only a year into the new administration, we are making good on the pledge for a historic change in Washington. But, of course, there is perhaps no greater legacy that a President leaves behind than the judicial appointments he makes. President Trump’s choices there will echo for generations. Further, there was perhaps no more distinguishing promise that then-candidate Trump made to the American people than the restoration of the judiciary. And thus, it is particularly gratifying to recognize that in no area have promises made more fully ripened into promises kept. Neil Gorsuch was a superb choice for the Supreme Court. At a historic juncture for our courts, he stands poised to seize the mantle left by Justice Antonin Scalia, and carry the cause of originalism and textualism forward for a new generation. But Justice Gorsuch was only the beginning. From the circuits courts to the district courts, judicial nominations, across the board, have been outstanding. The results will be felt for decades to come. From the outset, President Trump has brought to this process the same acumen and drive that made him so successful in business. First, he has clearly named his agenda: a judiciary recommitted to the impartial administration of justice and refocused on the rule of law. Second, he has wisely picked his team: White House Counsel Don McGahn and his staff have been, in a word, exceptional. And third, the President is executing flawlessly: as a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I can say confidently that we’ve never seen such a high-quality stable of nominees, and nominated at such a rapid pace. As is not much of a secret in Washington these days, Republicans tend to disagree among themselves quite a bit. Through the effort to deliver on our promises to the American people, there will be differences of opinion on the best policy means to reach shared policy goals. But one thing that continues to unify the Conference here in the Senate, and Republicans across the country, is the conviction that an independent, impartial judiciary is simply too important to lose. And that is why, whatever our differences on other issues, conservatives across the board heartily approve of the way this administration has handled judicial nominations. I’ll continue to work with my colleagues here in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Leader McConnell, to confirm these judges. As the rest of our agenda gains steam, judicial selection will remain the vanguard. Through the 2016 campaign, the President promised to pull the best people onto his team, and to deliver real results for the American people. On judicial nominations, that’s precisely what he is doing. By installing and empowering such a capable White House Counsel’s office, he has signaled the seriousness with which he takes this effort. And by keeping up the pace of nominations, he has assured that this enormous opportunity for improvement in the judiciary will not go to waste. The product of the administration’s efforts, and the good that can still be done, will carve a defining legacy of which we can all be proud.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=66E58B83-AF40-48E6-9929-B2C8EE0EAA1D,"Hatch, Laurie Holt call for Medical Attention for Josh in Venezuelan Prison",2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) joined Laurie Holt, mother of imprisoned Utahn Joshua Holt in calling on the Maduro government to comply with court orders allowing Josh to receive medical attention following reports that he had fallen ill in his Venezuelan prison cell.  Hatch, with Laurie and Jason Holt in July “It’s beyond inhumane to deny a court order allowing Josh to receive the urgent medical care he needs,” Hatch said. “I call on the Maduro government to see that Josh is able to receive immediate medical attention as we continue to work towards his release on humanitarian grounds.” Josh’s mother Laurie Holt added, “Sadly today our son Josh Holt found himself again in a dire medical situation. They have disregarded the court order approving his transport to a Medical Facility to receive proper medical care, and the Prison's Directors under the instructions of high Government officials have continuously denied him the transfer to such a facility. Josh Holt is in a delicate state and therefore we ask again that Venezuela releases him under humanitarian grounds immediately. We also ask that our leaders in the US Government double their efforts in bringing him home before it is too late.” Senator Hatch has been working with the Holt family, the Trump administration, and previously the Obama administration towards Josh’s release from prison for over a year, and continues to work behind the scenes to return Josh to his family in Riverton. Background: Hatch update on Josh Holt’s case—9/2016 Hatch update on working with John Kerry and Joe Biden on Josh’s behalf—9/2016 Hatch update ahead of second schedule hearing in Venezuela – 10/2016—“I will not stop until we have Josh back.” Hatch update—working with Venezuelan ambassador to the organization of American states after Judge failed to show up to another hearing for Josh – 11/2016 B-roll video of Hatch meeting with Secretary of State Tillerson, discussing Josh’s case—1/2017 Release: Hatch Presses Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson on Utahn Josh Holt, Key International Issues B-roll video—Hatch meets with Laurie Holt in the Capitol ahead of her meeting with Undersecretary Shannon and President Trump Release: Hatch Calls for Action Ahead of One-Year Mark of Joshua Holt’s Captivity in Venezuela",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=89231002-211B-40A2-A669-F99B203BCA61,"Hatch Reacts to New York Attack, Offers Foreign Policy Recommendations",2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the terrorist attack in New York this morning. In doing so, he also outlined a robust foreign policy agenda to help correct the mistakes of previous administrations and restore trust in American leadership abroad. Via YouTube “This morning’s terrorist attack reminded all of us that danger is never far from our nation’s shores. While details about the bombing in New York are still emerging, we already know one thing for certain: This was an attack not only on the American people but on the principles we stand for. It was an attack on freedom and our very way of life. The violence we witnessed this morning stands as a stark reminder that America has many enemies. Overseas, animosity towards the United States grows stronger as the world grows ever more chaotic. And so this afternoon, Mme. President, I wish to speak on America’s role in these turbulent times. As the Trump administration works to return our country back to its rightful role as the leader of a broken world, you will find my foreign policy recommendations today to be not only intrinsically American, but also inherently good.’”   Hatch’s full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Via YouTube  Mme. President, before I turn to the main portion of my remarks, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize two staffers who were instrumental in helping us pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act earlier this month.  James Williams, my Senior Policy Advisor, and Nick Clason, a talented young staffer, both worked long hours to help make tax reform a reality. I wanted to take just a brief moment to recognize them for the late nights they spent helping me hash out the details of this bill. They are some of the hardest-working members of my staff, and I hope they know how much I appreciate them. Now, Mme. President, I wish to turn to a subject of great importance to our national security. This morning’s terrorist attack reminded all of us that danger is never far away from our nation’s shores. While details about the bombing in New York are still emerging, we already know one thing for certain: This was an attack not only on the American people but on the principles we stand for. It was an attack on freedom and our very way of life.  The violence we witnessed this morning stands as a stark reminder that America has many enemies. Overseas, animosity towards the United States grows stronger as the world grows ever more chaotic. And so today, Mme. President, I wish to speak on America’s role in these turbulent times.  As the Trump administration works to return our country back to its rightful role as the leader of a broken world, you will find my foreign policy recommendations today to be not only intrinsically American, but also inherently good.  My solution to the chaos that now grips the world is the simple principle articulated by President Reagan over thirty years ago in his Evil Empire speech. Addressing the National Association of Evangelicals, he said these words: “America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Mme. President, to be sure, we find ourselves in a world very different from that which President Reagan faced. Today, the structured diplomatic environment we once operated in has come into question with the fall of local governments in much of the Middle East. Global alliances, while strong in the commitments and connectivity among member nations, are weak in direction and long-term purpose. Political narratives of states—once stable and predictable—must today compete with the conversations being had on the streets and in the classrooms by those with access to mobile phones and social media. Since Reagan’s time, the world has not only grown more complicated but also more dangerous. The threat of state-on-state military showdowns seems imminent—particularly with North Korea and Iran. Where we have achieved military successes we remain reluctant to declare victory, as is the case with ISIS. And to deal with the most intractable issues, such as the conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we seem to rely on partner nations who often work at cross purposes with our own objectives. And how has the United States engaged with this chaos? Well, in many cases, President Obama sought to ignore it altogether. Indeed, if his foreign policy could be boiled down to two words, they would be these: Stay out. The Obama administration spent the better part of eight years making disengagement a cornerstone of American foreign policy, captured by the euphemism offshore balancing—in other words, deferring to local actors to manage regional problems.  The Obama doctrine offered easy answers to complex problems. But easy answers are rarely the right answers. And a gradual US withdrawal from an increasingly chaotic world under President Obama only made matters worse. And so, thanks to the hands-off approach of his predecessor, President Trump inherited a truly unprecedented state of world disorder. Despite these great challenges, our ability to achieve good in the world has not diminished. But if we are to achieve good in the world—if we are to restore peace and stability in these troubled times—then we must first rediscover our purpose in global affairs. We must make an honest assessment of where we have gone wrong in the past and how we can improve in the future. In our engagement with the world, we seem to have drifted far from how we used to do things. The foreign policy of President Obama, for example, chose to transact in one of two words: threats and interests. How big is the threat to national security that ISIS or a nuclear Iran poses? What is the US interest in Syria? How do we preserve American security and interests in the South Pacific? Under this myopic approach, anything that didn’t fit neatly into either a threat or interest was of little importance. The foreign policy of the Obama years put the United States in a short-term responsive mode, with little capacity to ask about the future. Rediscovering our purpose in the world requires us to look beyond mere considerations of threats and interests. It requires us to reconnect with our core values by making them central to our foreign policy. Foremost among those values is promoting freedom. Freedom is what we stand for as a nation. As President Reagan said, “America is freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection.” President Bush carried this tradition, squarely identifying the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as enemies of freedom. And as he keenly observed, what divided the United States from its adversaries was not faith, skin color, gender, or race, but hatred of America and the freedoms it stands for.   And President Bush did not mince words in describing exactly who our enemy was. Following the 9/11 attacks, he described those who committed the attacks as belonging to “a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” In his use of the phrase Islamic extremism, President Bush was not afraid to call the enemy by its name—and neither were our Muslim allies who joined us in the fight against terrorism.  But in the name of political correctness, President Obama refused to use the words Islamic extremism, insisting instead on the vague expression violent extremism. This small but consequential change caused deep conceptual and bureaucratic damage to our strategy and our institutions. Not only did the Obama administration distract us from gaining understanding of who the adversary is and the tools needed to fight and understand him, but it also deemed irrelevant once-successful government programs on the grounds that they did not adequately address this Beltway term of violent extremism. Meanwhile, jihadist groups outpaced and outmaneuvered Obama’s sophistry by strategically embedding themselves within local populations in Syria and Iraq, disguising themselves as moderate and protective of local populations. Mme. President, in place of the feckless foreign policy of the Obama years, I offer instead a global policy defined by one word: Purpose. With purpose, we can look to the future and address the kind of legacy we hope to leave behind. With purpose, we can define what it is we seek to achieve in the world, where we can make a difference, and how we can effect lasting change on a global scale. Rediscovering our purpose in global affairs doesn’t mean giving up our focus on threats and interests. Quite the opposite; it means ensuring that the way in which we address threats and interests helps us achieve our ultimate goal—that of ensuring freedom in the world. Today’s world offers many opportunities to act with renewed purpose in the defense of freedom. In Syria, for example, a collapsing ISIS caliphate and a bloody civil war leave a traumatized population in their wake. While a political solution for all of Syria seems remote, we can work towards meaningful goals in the near-term to help resettle internally displaced persons. Although much of the country remains at war, we should focus on helping the most vulnerable populations within these pockets of promise—those neighborhoods in northwest Syria and along the Jordanian and Israeli borders. Within these pockets of promise, we can change people’s lives—and ultimately, the region—by working with our local partners to build hospitals and schools with modern curricula. In Iran, too, we can make a difference. The President’s recent decision to decertify the Iran deal was itself a step in the right direction. The Iran deal singlehandedly gave international legitimacy to an enemy regime openly committed to the destruction of the United States and its allies. The deal was indeed a bad one; its only achievement, if it can be called such, was deferring the question of when, not whether, Iran will be able to achieve a nuclear weapon. And it only hardened the hostile voices against the United States, allowing them to build a case that those who oppose the deal are enemies of the Iranian people. This assertion is plainly false. As the President noted in his address to the United Nations, the good people of Iran want change, and they are the regime’s longest-suffering victims. The President now has the opportunity to act with renewed purpose in the region, dealing a final blow to the Ayatollah’s antics. Moving forward, as we leverage military strength to disrupt the regime’s hostile activities around the world, we can also actively use diplomatic channels to support the wishes of the Iranian people—to promote their freedoms, and to help them realize the opportunities their government denies them. Meanwhile, in North Korea, as we prepare for any scenario that might await us, we must acknowledge our ultimate strategic advantage—our allies. The greatest threat to Kim Jong-Un is that he is completely isolated from his neighbors and his people.  As we seek diplomatic approaches to deescalating the tensions, we must ensure that it is the right kind of diplomacy with the right message: a message about the future of the region, and the future of a new North Korea in that region. If Mr. Kim does not realize the need to change his ways, then certainly he will get that message when he sees the might of his neighbors working with the United States towards shared objectives. That is the power of alliances, of strong and loyal partnerships. But even as we resolve to do good in these situations, we must remain as vigilant and aggressive as ever in meeting the threats that no doubt will continue to test us. The key will be to stand true to ourselves and our allies. That’s what we did when the President recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week. And that’s what I sought to do in my meetings with Prime Minister Theresa May and MI5 Director General Andrew Parker during my visit to the United Kingdom last month. There, I highlighted the need to pass legislation to enable our two nations to work more closely together in the fight against terror and criminal activity. We talked about my International Communications Privacy Act, which would create a clear legal framework for law enforcement officials to access data relevant to criminal investigations stored in other countries. We also spoke about legislation to implement the US-UK data-sharing agreement, which would give law enforcement in our two countries reciprocal rights to access data stored in the other country under certain prescribed circumstances. I told the Prime Minister and the Director General that I believe these two pieces of legislation are closely linked and that I am actively looking for vehicles to move them forward. This is precisely what President Reagan meant when he welcomed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to Washington upon assuming the presidency: our two countries are “kindred nations of like-minded people, and must face their tests together. [For indeed], the responsibility for freedom is ours to share.”        Mme. President, it is when America realizes its purpose—to do good in the world by defending freedom—that our greatness will be known. As we bring ourselves out from the margins of international affairs and piece together the broken shards of that world order we have worked for decades to shape, let us help the administration and the country rediscover the purpose we were destined to pursue. Only then, and only together, will we be able to make America and the world great again.  I yield the floor.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/socialcapitalproject?ContentRecord_id=24993658-359C-4039-B672-19AF5E444B0F,"Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing",2017-12-11,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Note that in all analyses, “unmarried” includes women cohabiting with a romantic partner who is not her husband. “Married” includes couples in which one spouse is absent from the home and (except where noted) separated couples. Figure 1. Share of Births that Occur to Unmarried Women, 1940-2015 1940-1999 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99, National Vital Statistics Reports 48(16), by Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bacharach, October 18, 2000 “Number, rate, and percent of births to unmarried women and birth rate for married women: United States, 1940-99,” Table 1, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. 2000-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2014, National Vital Statistics Reports 64(12), by Brady E. Hamilton et al., December 23, 2015, “Births and birth rates for unmarried and married women: United States, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000–2014” Table B, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf. 2015 estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2015, National Vital Statistics Reports 66(1), by Joyce A. Martin, Brady E. Hamilton, Michelle J.K. Osterman, Anne K. Driscoll, and T.J. Mathews, January 5, 2017, “Births and birth rates for unmarried women, by age and race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 2015,” Table 15, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_01.pdf. Figure 2. Median Age at First Marriage among Women, 1890-2016 U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Marital Status Tables, “Estimated Median Age at First Marriage: 1890 to present,” accessed December 5, 2017, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/marital/ms2.xls. Figure 3. Percentage of Women Ages 30-34 Never Married, 1880-2016 1880-1970 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of decennial census data, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, accessed December 5, 2017, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Steven Ruggles, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 7.0 [dataset], [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017], accessed December 5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V7.0.) The 1850-1950 trend includes women who are separated, as it is not possible to distinguish them from never-married women prior to 1950. The 1950-1970 trend excludes separated women. 1962-2016 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset], [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017], accessed December 5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V5.0.) Separated women are excluded. Figure 4. Percentage of Ever-Married Women Ages 50-54 Who Ever Divorced, 1940-2015 1940-1980 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the decennial census and the American Community Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017.) It is not possible to distinguish previously widowed from previously divorced women, unless either occurred after the most recent marriage (in which case their marital status at the time of the survey indicates divorced or widowed). We assume the ratio of ever divorced to ever widowed women among those with two or more marriages to be the same in each year as the ratio of currently divorced to currently widowed women 50-54. This approach misses some widows who also have been divorced and thereby undercounts ever-divorced women (if our assumption is otherwise correct). Estimates are unavailable in the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses or in the American Community Survey prior to 2008. Figure 5. Percentage of Women Ages 15-44 Who are Married, 1880-2016 1880-1970 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of decennial census data, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017.) The 1850-1950 trend excludes women who are separated, as they are combined with never-married women in the data prior to 1950. The 1950-1970 trend includes separated women. 1962-2016 estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0, 2017.) Separated women are included. Figure 6. Births to Married Couples per 1,000 Married Women, 1950-2015 1950-1989 estimates are from Ventura et al., Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99, Table 1. 1990-2000 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990s and New Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000 and 2001: United States, National Vital Statistics Reports 51(12), by Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, and Stephanie J. Ventura, August 4, 2003, “Birth rates for married women, by age, race, and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 1990–2001,” Table 8, accessed December 5, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_12.pdf. 2001-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015 “Births and birth rates for unmarried and married women: United States, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000–2014,” Table B. 2015 estimate is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017, “Trends in marital and nonmarital birth rates: United States, 2005–2015,” Figure 4. Figure 7. Pregnancy Rates among Married Women, 1960-64 to 2005-09 These rates combine estimates of births from marital conceptions, abortions obtained by married women, and miscarriages and still births experienced by married women. Births from marital conceptions are from our analyses of the 1980 and 1995 Fertility and Marital History Supplements to the June Current Population Survey (CPS) and of various cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). We pool births from five-year intervals (e.g., 1960-1964 and 2005-2009) but show data points in the chart at years ending in “2” and “7” (e.g., 1962 and 2007). The 1960-1964 estimate relies on the 1980 CPS data, the 1970-1974 estimate is an average from both the 1980 and 1995 CPS, the 1980-1984 estimate is an average from the 1995 CPS and the 1988 NSFG, the 1990-1994 estimate is an average from the 1995 CPS and 1995 NSFG, the 1995-1999 estimate is from the 2002 NSFG, the 2000-2004 estimate is from the 2006-2010 NSFG, and the 2005-2009 estimate is an average from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG. These specific surveys were selected for specific birth cohorts because they are representative of women who were between the ages of 15 and 44 at the time of their child’s birth (or reasonably close to representative). The 1980 CPS supplement included women as old as 75, which means that birth cohorts from as recently as 1979 are represented, as are cohorts from 1949 (when 75-year-old women taking the survey would have been 44 years old). The 1995 CPS supplement included women as old as 65, meaning it covers birth cohorts from 1974 to 1994. We chose to analyze the 1960-1974 cohorts using the 1980 CPS and the 1970-1994 cohorts using the 1995 CPS. (For the 1970 cohort, the 1995 CPS only captures births to women who were 15-40, for the 1971 cohort only births to women 15-41, and so on up to 15-44 for the 1974 cohort. The results were very similar to the 1970-1974 estimates using the 1980 CPS.) For the NSFG surveys, which only include women up to age 44, the birth cohorts are somewhat less representative. In the 1988 NSFG, for instance, not all 1988 births to 44-year-old women will have occurred. More problematically, if one would like to capture the 1980 birth cohorts, one will miss 1980 births to women age 37 or higher, because those women were older than 44 in 1988 and thus excluded from the NSFG. The 1984 birth cohort will exclude births to women older than 40 for the same reason. As a rule of thumb, we used an NSFG survey to represent a five-year birth cohort if births to all women 34 years old or younger were represented in the survey. In 2015, 84 percent of all births occurred to women under 35 years old, and 97 percent occurred to women under 40 years old, while just 56 percent occurred to women under 30 years old. (See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017.) We arrived at this rule after comparing estimates produced by different NSFG surveys for the same five-year birth cohorts. Estimates from surveys that excluded births to women, say, older than 42 were consistently similar to estimates from surveys excluding births to women, say, older than 36. In addition, estimates of the share of births that were to single mothers consistently were close to estimates from vital statistics data. In contrast, estimates from surveys excluding births to women, say, older than 29 indicated notably fewer births and yielded a higher share of births to single mothers. The most uncertain of these estimates is the one for 2005-2009, which averages five-year estimates from the most recent two NSFG surveys. The two surveys provided consistent estimates—44 percent and 43 percent of births were to single mothers—but those estimates were somewhat higher than in vital statistics data (39 percent). The analyses using the CPS modify the approach in an earlier Census Bureau report. (See U.S. Census Bureau, Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994, Current Population Reports, by Amara Bachu, October 1999, https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf.) That report compares the timing of first births to that of first marriages for women 15-29. We generalize to all births to women of all ages. For each woman in the data, we compare dates for up to five births to dates of up to three marriages and up to three marriage terminations. For each birth, we characterize it as coming from a nonmarital conception leading to a nonmarital birth (births occurring while a woman was single), a nonmarital conception followed by a shotgun marriage (births occurring less than eight months subsequent to a marriage), or a marital conception (births occurring eight months or more after a marriage). The NSFG analyses compare reported marital status at the time of conception to marital status at the child’s birth. We confirmed that our methodology produced a very similar number of births and distribution of births by marital status at conception by marital status at birth as in U.S. Census Bureau (1999) for the same birth cohorts. We use the distribution of births estimated from these samples, averaged across samples as indicated, and divide the number of births (sometimes averaging across samples first) by five so that we can add births to annual estimates of abortion. To estimate abortions by marital status, we begin with abortion ratios (abortions divided by the sum of abortions plus births) for married and unmarried women age 15-44. For 1974, 1984, 1994, 1999, and 2004, those ratios are from the Guttmacher Institute. (See Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, “Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortion, 1974 to 2004,” Guttmacher Institute, August 2008, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/trendswomenabortions-wtables.pdf.) For 2008, we compute the abortion ratios for women age 15-44 from abortion and birth estimates. Abortion estimates are computed by multiplying the number of abortions by the marital and nonmarital share of abortions. (See Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49, no. 1[2017], 17-27, Table 1.) Birth estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015, Table B and Table 1. For 1960-1964 and 1965-1969, we begin with an estimate of abortions (legal and illegal) in 1969 from a 1982 study. (See Willard Cates, “Legal Abortion: The Public Health Record,” Science 215, no. 4540(1982), 1586-1590, Figure 1.) The illegal estimate (700,000) is the midpoint of a wide range estimated for 1955 (200,000-1,200,000). (See Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.) It is also very close to the number implied by a 1968 study of central, urban North Carolina (698,914), which used an inventive methodology that allowed an estimate of abortions to be obtained from the overall results of those surveyed without any individual in the study having to admit to having one. (See James R. Abernathy, Bernard G. Greenberg, and Daniel G. Horvitz, “Estimates of Induced Abortion in Urban North Carolina,” Demography 7, no. 1[1970], 19-29.) Applying this North Carolina study’s estimates to the 1967 population of women produced an estimate of around 829,000 abortions. Thus, 700,000 (or 722,000 adding in legal abortions) is likely an underestimate for 1969, and it is likely somewhat of an underestimate for 1960-1964 and 1965-1969. We then compute the 1969 abortion ratio using birth estimates from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015. Finally, we distribute these births between married and unmarried women by comparing the overall abortion ratio in 1974 to the marital and nonmarital abortion ratios in 1974 and applying those ratios of ratios to the overall abortion ratio for 1969. We assume the 1969 abortion ratios for married and unmarried women apply to 1960-1964 and to 1965-1969. As a check against this approach, we re-estimated the marital and nonmarital abortion ratios using 1979 ratios instead of 1974 ones, which produces significantly smaller nonmarital abortion ratios for the 1960s. None of the results discussed in the paper are qualitatively different in any important way using these estimates. Once we have the abortion ratios for each year, we then apply the ratios by marital status to the number of births by marital status at birth, using the estimates from the CPS and NSFG (births following a shotgun marriage included with marital births). For example, the 1974 abortion ratios are applied to births to married and unmarried women from 1970 to 1974, the 1984 ratio to births from 1980 to 1984, etc. We add births from marital conceptions to marital abortions and births from nonmarital conceptions to nonmarital abortions. We convert these to rates by dividing by married and unmarried women. These come from our analyses using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, using decennial census data for 1960-1964, http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples and data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey for 1970-2009, https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples. (Ruggles et al., 2017; Flood et al., 2017.) For 1960-1964, the estimate is interpolated between census years by multiplying the intercensal population change from 1960 to 1970 by 0.2 (corresponding roughly to a 1962 estimate). The estimates for 1970-2009 are actually five-year averages (1970-74,…, 2005-09). These estimates are adjusted by adding one quarter of births that come from a shotgun marriage to the number of unmarried women and subtracting them from the number of married women. This roughly reflects the fact that in the CPS data from which the 1970-2009 estimates are drawn, the survey takes place primarily in March, and at that point, one quarter of any year’s shotgun marriages might be expected to have taken place. For “fetal death rates” (miscarriages and still births) by marital status, we begin with 1990-2004 estimates of fetal loss rates by marital status from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, “Estimated Pregnancy Rates by Outcome for the United States, 1990-2004, National Vital Statistics Reports 56(15), by Stephanie J. Ventura, Joyce C. Abma, William D. Mosher, and Stanley K. Henshaw, April 14, 2008, “Pregnancy, live birth, and induced abortion rates by marital status and race and Hispanic origin: United States, 1990–2004,” Table 5, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_15.pdf. We use 2009 fetal loss rate estimates by marital status from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Pregnancy Rates for U.S. Women Continue to Drop, Data Brief no. 136, by Sally C. Curtin, Joyce C. Abma, Stephanie J. Ventura, and Stanley K. Henshaw, December 2013, “Pregnancy rates, by outcome and marital status: United States, 1990, 2000, and 2009,” Figure 5, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db136.pdf. We compute 1980 rates by subtracting (for each marital status) the live birth rates and the induced abortion rates from the pregnancy rates, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Trends in Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates by Outcome: Estimates for the United States, 1976-96, Vital Health Statistics 21(56), by Stephanie J. Ventura, William D. Mosher, Sally C. Curtin, Joyce C. Abma, and Stanley K. Henshaw, January 2000, “Pregnancy, live birth, and induced abortion rates by marital status and race and Hispanic origin: United States, 1980 and 1990–95,” Table 6, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_056.pdf. Getting fetal loss rate estimates by marital status for 1960-1964 and 1970-1974 was more difficult. Fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation per 1,000 live births or fetal losses for women with “legitimate” and “illegitimate” pregnancies are available for 1945, 1955, and 1960 from U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Rates in the United States 1940-1960, by Robert D. Grove and Alice M. Hetzel, 1968, “Fetal mortality ratios by legitimacy status, age of mother, and color: Reporting States, 1945,1966-60,” Table 36, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf. The same source provides the same fetal loss rates for white and black women, which closely match the rates for, respectively, “legitimate” and “illegitimate” pregnancies. This fact is useful because fetal loss rates for whites and blacks are available from this source for 1960, 1970, and 1980 too. Substituting white and black rates for married and unmarried rates per 1,000 live births or fetal losses, and using births per 1,000 married and unmarried women from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000), we computed fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation per 1,000 married and unmarried women for 1960, 1970, and 1980. What we need are fetal losses from pregnancies of any length per 1,000 married and unmarried women. We compute the ratios of the 1960-to-1980 rates for fetal losses of at least 20 weeks gestation (separately for married and unmarried women) and of the 1970-to-1980 rates. Finally, we apply these ratios to our 1980 fetal loss rates by marital status from above. Adding fetal loss rates to the pregnancy rates involving live births or abortions yields overall pregnancy rates. We use 1960, 1970, and 1980 fetal loss rates for our 1960-1964, 1970-1974, and 1980-1984 pregnancy rates, and we use 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2009 rates for 1990-1994, 1995-1997, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009. Figure 8. Births to Single Mothers per 1,000 Single Women, 1940-2015 1940-1989 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000, Table 1. 1990-2000 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990s and New Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000 and 2001: United States, National Vital Statistics Reports 51(12), by Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, and Stephanie J. Ventura, August 4, 2003, “Birth rates for unmarried women, by age, race, and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 1990–2001,” Table 7, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_12.pdf. 2001-2014 estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015, Table B. 2015 estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017, Table 15. Figure 9. Percent of Teenage Women Who Have Ever Had Sex, 1960-2015 1960-1972 “Never-Married 19” estimates (never-married women age 19) are taken from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions,” Journal of Political Economy 110, no. 4, 730-770. We eyeballed the estimates shown in the “before 19” line in Figure 6. The 1941 birth cohort would have been 19 in 1960, so we use the estimate for that cohort as our “1960” estimate. Similarly, the 1953 cohort would have been 19 in 1972. 1971-1982 “Age 18-19, Premarital” estimates are from Sandra L. Hofferth, Joan R. Kahn, and Wendy Baldwin, “Premarital Sexual Activity Among U.S. Teenage Women Over the Past Three Decades,” Family Planning Perspectives 19, no. 2(1987), 46-53, Table 2. We calculate the simple average of the 18- and 19-year-old rates. The rates indicate the share of all women 18-19 (married or unmarried) who ever had had premarital sex. 1982-1995 “Age 18-19” estimates are from Susheela Singh and Jacqueline E. Darroch, “Trends in Sexual Activity Among Adolescent American Women: 1982-1995,” Family Planning Perspectives 31, no. 5(1999), 212-219, Table 2, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3121299.pdf. 1988-2008 “Never-Married 18-19” estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease National Center for Health Statistics, Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, G. Martinez, C.E. Copen, and J.C. Abma, Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital Health Statistics 23(31), October 2011, “Never-married females and males aged 15–19 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2006–2010,” Table 1, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf. 2013 “Never-Married 18-19” estimate is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011–2015, National Health Statistics Reports no. 104, by Joyce C. Abma and Gladys M. Martinez, June 22, 2017, “Percentage of never-married females and males aged 15–19 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 2002, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015,” Table 1, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf. The estimate is actually a five-year average from 2011-2015. Figure 10. Pregnancy and Birth Rates among Unmarried Women, 1960-64 to 2010-14 1962-2007 nonmarital pregnancy estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. See note to Figure 7. 1962-2007 nonmarital birth estimates are five-year averages of the estimates in Figure 8. For example, “1962” is the average of the 1960-1964 rates. Figure 11. Unintended Pregnancies and Abortions as a Share of Pregnancies among Unmarried Women, 1974-2009 1974-2009 nonmarital abortion estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. See the note to Figure 7. 1980-1984 to 2005-2009 nonmarital unintended pregnancy estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses. We estimate nonmarital unintended pregnancies ending in a birth using data from the National Survey of Family Growth. We use the 1988 NSFG for the 1980-1984 estimate, the 1995 NSFG for the 1985-1989 and 1990-1994 estimates, the 2002 NSFG for the 1995-1999 estimate, and the 2006-2010 NSFG for the 2000-2004 estimate. We average 2005-2009 estimates from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG. See the note to Figure 7 for our rationale. To these unintended births, we add estimates of nonmarital abortions among women 15-44. Then we divide by estimates of the number of nonmarital pregnancies among women 15-44. See the note to Figure 7 for details on both of these calculations. Unlike in our other analyses, we use only the NSFG to estimate births when we compute the number of nonmarital pregnancies (ignoring the CPS completely). These estimates are shown in the chart at 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007. Figure 12. Percent of Births to Women that Began as Unwed Pregnancies and Percent of Unwed Births, 1950-54 to 2005-09 Estimates are from Social Capital Project analyses of CPS and NSFG data. See the note to Figure 7. Figure 13. Shotgun Marriage Rate, 1950-54 to 2005-09 1950-2009 estimates of the share of unwed births that follow a shotgun marriage are from Social Capital Project analyses of CPS and NSFG data. See the note to Figure 7. 1960-2009 estimates of the share of unwed pregnancies that end in a post-shotgun-marriage birth are from Social Capital Project analyses. The computation begins with the nonmarital pregnancy rates estimated for Figure 7 (see the note to that figure). We multiply the rates by the number of unmarried women (including as unmarried women a number equal to one-fourth of births following a shotgun marriage) to get nonmarital pregnancies (rather than rates). We then divide the number of nonmarital births following a shotgun marriage (see the note to Figure 7) by the number of pregnancies. Figure 14. Increase in the Share of Births That Are to Unwed Mothers, and Counterfactual Scenarios, 1960-64 to 2005-09 These estimates are based on those computed for Figure 7 (see the note to that figure). We decompose births from nonmarital conceptions in each year as the product of the number of women ages 15-44, the share of women 15-44 who are single, the nonmarital pregnancy rate per 1,000 women 15-44 (but excluding fetal deaths), and the percentage of nonmarital pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths) that do not end in abortion. We decompose nonmarital births as the product of births from nonmarital conceptions and one minus the shotgun marriage rate. We decompose births from marital conceptions as the product of the number of women ages 15-44, the share of women 15-44 who are married, the marital pregnancy rate (excluding fetal deaths), and the percentage of marital pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths) that do not end in abortion. We decompose marital births as births from marital conceptions plus the product of births from nonmarital conceptions and the shotgun marriage rate. Finally, we compute the unwed birth share as unwed births divided by the sum of marital and unwed births. This decomposition allows us to hold any of the component variables mentioned above at early 1960s levels while allowing other component variables to change over time. These decompositions resulted in estimated unwed birth shares of 7.9 percent in the early 1960s and 43.4 percent in the late 2000s (compared with 6.0 averaging vital statistics data estimates from 1960 to 1964 and 39.3 percent averaging 2005 to 2009). These simulations ignore fetal deaths and thereby assume that they are a constant share of pregnancies over the period. Our estimates suggest that, actually, fetal deaths were 13 percent of nonmarital pregnancies in 1960-1964 and 12 percent in 2005-2009, while they were 28 percent of marital pregnancies in 1960-1964 and 22 percent in 2005-2009. (See the notes to Figure 7.) These changes are too small to qualitatively affect our results. Figure 15. Increase in the Share of Births That Are to Unwed Mothers, and Counterfactual Scenarios, Previously Childless Women 15-29, 1960-64 to 2005-09 These estimates are based on estimates for childless women ages 15-29 that are analogous to the estimates for all women ages 15-44 computed for the analyses in Figure 7. Beginning with births by marital status at conception and at birth, for 1960-1994 we use estimates taken from U.S. Census Bureau (1999) of the number of births and distribution. For 1995-2009, we produce our own estimates using various NSFG surveys. The 1995-1999 estimates are averages from the 2002 and 2006-2010 NSFG, the 2000-2004 estimates are averages from the 2006-2010 and 2011-2013 NSFG, and the 2005-2009 estimates are averages from the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 NSFG. We estimate abortions as for all women ages 15-44, except that we have to assume that the abortion ratios (abortions divided by the sum of abortions and births) for unmarried and married childless women ages 15-29 are the same as for all unmarried and married women ages 15-44. How valid is this assumption? Abortion ratios for married and unmarried women between the ages of 15 and 29 (childless or not) were close to those for married and unmarried women between the ages of 15 and 44 in 1983 and 1987. The ratio for younger married women was about 15 percent lower than for all married women in both years, and the ratio for younger unmarried women was 1 to 2 percentage points lower. This is reassuring in that the difference between the two age groups is always small and is similar in both years. The discrepancies are not enough to qualitatively change our point-in-time 1980s estimates, but if the bias changed over time, that would affect our trends. See Stanley K. Henshaw, “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982-1983,” Family Planning Perspectives 19, no. 1(1987): 5-9, and Stanley K. Henshaw, Lisa M. Koonin, and Jack C. Smith, “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987,” Family Planning Perspectives 23, no. 2(1991), 75-81. It is not clear whether the ratios for childless younger women are similar to the ratios for all women. Childless women account for a declining share of abortions over time—58 percent in 1980 but just 41 percent in 2014—but so do women 15-29 (82 percent versus 72 percent). See Henshaw et al. (1991) and Jenna Jerman, Rachel K. Jones, and Tsuyoshi Onda, “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008,” Guttmacher Institute, May 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014.pdf. It is likely, then, that childless women account for a similar share of women 15-29 over time, which suggests that the abortion ratio for women 15-29 is roughly no better or worse a proxy for the ratio among childless women 15-29 over time. As for the analyses in Figure 7, our estimates for the number of married and unmarried women come from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Online Data Analysis System, using decennial census data for 1960-1964 (http://sda.usa.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_usa_samples) and data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey for 1970-2009 (https://sda.cps.ipums.org/cgi-bin/sdaweb/hsda?harcsda+all_march_samples). (Ruggles et al., 2017; Flood et al., 2017.) We conduct the counterfactual simulations for the results displayed in Figure 15 in the same way as for Figure 14. As in the Figure 14 analyses, these simulations ignore fetal deaths and thereby assume that they are a constant share of pregnancies over the period. 1 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values, 2011), accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=81#.UV7T6ze9EgU. 2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4), by A.J. Sedlak et al., 2010, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/fourth-national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-report-to. 3 W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences; Robert I. Lerman and W. Bradford Wilcox, “For Richer, For Poorer: How Family Structures Economic Success in America,” American Enterprise Institute & Institute for Family Studies, October 28, 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.aei.org/publication/for-richer-for-poorer-how-family-structures-economic-success-in-america/. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, “Poverty Status of Families, by Type of Family, Presence of Related Children, Race and Hispanic Origin,” Historical Poverty Tables Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html. 5 Future work from the Social Capital Project will address the question of the causal effects of growing up with married parents. 6 See Sara McLanahan, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider, “The Causal Effects of Father Absence,” Annual Review of Sociology 39 (2013), 399-427. This paper is a summary of the more sophisticated research that has been conducted since the mid-1990s. For a review of the earlier, less rigorous, literature, see Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997). 7 Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock, “New Families and Nonresident Father-Child Visitation,” Social Forces 78, no. 1(1999), 87-116; Wendy D. Manning and Pamela J. Smock, “’Swapping’ Families: Serial Parenting and Economic Support for Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62, no. 1(2000), 111-122. 8 For detailed methodologies used to produce the charts in this paper, see the Source Notes at the end of the paper. 9 Social Capital Project computations for 2005-2009 using the 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth. See the note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. 10 Sheela Kennedy and Steven Ruggles, “Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980-2010,” Demography 51, no. 2(2014): 587-598, Figure 3, http://users.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Articles/breaking_up.pdf. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990, Monthly Vital Statistics Report 43(8), by Sally C. Clarke, March 22, 1995, “Divorces and Annulments and Rates: United States, 1940-90,” Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/mvsr/supp/mv43_09s.pdf. 11 Social Capital Project computations. This conclusion is based on the trend in nonmarital pregnancies among childless women ages 15-29 leading to a first birth. See U.S. Census Bureau, Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994, Current Population Reports, by Amara Bachu, October 1999, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf. These estimates ignore miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions. Abortion was relatively rare before the early 1960s, involving perhaps 15 percent of pregnancies ending in birth or abortion by 1960. We estimate that abortions were 17 percent of conceptions that ended in birth or abortion in 1969. Computing this percentage requires estimates of the number of abortions and the number of births for the same group of women. We use an estimate of abortions that includes illegal abortions. See Willard Cates, “Legal Abortion: The Public Health Record,” Science 215, no. 4540(1982), 1586-1590, Table 1. Cates takes as his illegal abortion estimate the midpoint of a range estimated at a 1955 conference sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. See Mary S. Calderone, ed., Abortion in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958). This estimate is somewhat below the number implied by a 1968 study of central, urban North Carolina. See James R. Abernathy, Bernard G. Greenberg, and Daniel G. Horvitz, “Estimates of Induced Abortion in Urban North Carolina,” Demography 7, no. 1(1970), 19-29. We use estimated births from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Births: Final Data for 2014, National Vital Statistics Reports 64(12), by Brady E. Hamilton et al., December 23, 2015, “Births and birth rates, by race: United States, specified years 1940–1955 and each year, 1960–2014,” Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf. Finally, we divide abortions by the sum of abortions and births. 12 Social Capital Project computations. We use marital abortions and marital conceptions producing a birth for women ages 15-44 (see note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper). The resulting abortion ratio differs from previously published estimates in that we exclude births following shotgun marriage from marital births. For trends in conventional abortion ratios by marital status, see Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, “Trends in the Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortion, 1974 to 2004,” Guttmacher Institute, August 2008, Table 2, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/trendswomenabortions-wtables.pdf. 13 Social Capital Project computations. In 1982, 65 percent of married women ages 15-44 were contracepters, a figure that rose to 71 percent by 1995 but that fell to 64 percent by the early 2010s. The number of 1982 contraceptive users is from William D. Mosher, “Contraceptive Practice in the United States, 1982-1988,” Family Planning Perspectives 22, no. 5 (1990), 198-205, Table 4. The number of 1995 contraceptive users is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current contraceptive use in the United States, 2006–2010, and changes in patterns of use since 1995, National Health Statistics Reports no. 60, by Jo Jones, William Mosher, and Kimberly Daniels, October 18, 2012, “Number of contracepting women aged 15–44 years and percent distribution of method used by age and marital status: United States, 1995 and 2006–2010,” Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf. The number of early 2010s contraceptive users is for 2011-2013, taken from, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current Contraceptive Use and Variation by Selected Characteristics Among Women Aged 15-44: United States, 2011-2013, National Health Statistics Reports no. 86, by Kimberly Daniels, Jill Daugherty, Jo Jones, and William Mosher, November 10, 2015, “Number of women aged 15–44 currently using a method of contraception during month of interview and percent distribution, by method, according to marital or cohabiting status, parity, and intent to have more children: United States, 2002 and 2011–2013,” Table 4, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr086.pdf. The number of married women ages 15-44 is from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website. See Sarah Flood, Miriam King, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset], (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, https://cps.ipums.org/cps/index.shtml. 14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, Data Brief no. 162, by Sally C. Curtin, Stephanie J. Ventura, and Gladys M. Martinez, August 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.pdf. 15 Cynthia Osborn and Sara McLanahan, “Partnership Instability and Child Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 69, no. 4(2007), 1065-1083. 16 Among 15-19-year-olds, the share of women (including married teens) ever having had sex rose from 47 percent in 1982 to 53 percent in 1988. At that point, sexual activity among teens began a steady decline. Social Capital Project computations using Guttmacher Institute data on pregnancy rates overall and among the sexually experienced. See Guttmacher Institute, “Among women aged 15-19, rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion ratios; numbers of pregnancies, births, abortions and fetal losses; and population, 1973-2013,” Table 1.1, accessed December 4, 2017 https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_downloads/us-adolescent-pregnancy-trends-2013_tables.pdf. We divide pregnancies per 1,000 by pregnancies per 1,000 conditional on having had sex to get the share having had sex. 17 Ibid. and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011–2015, National Health Statistics Reports no. 104, by Joyce C. Abma and Gladys M. Martinez, June 22, 2017, “Percentage of never-married females and males aged 15–19 who have ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 2002, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015,” Table 1, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr104.pdf. (See the Source Note for Figure 9 at the end of this paper.) The estimate for 18- and 19-year-olds is actually a five-year average from 2011-2015. Combining men and women, 48 percent of 20-year-olds had engaged in premarital sex between 1959 and 1968, compared to 65 percent between 1969 and 1978, 72 percent between 1979 and 1988, and 76 percent between 1989 and 1998. See Lawrence B. Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003,” Public Health Reports 122, no. 1(2007), 73-78. 18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of STD Prevention, Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2015, October 2016, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases — Reported Cases and Rates of Reported Cases per 100,000 Population, United States, 1941–2015,” Table 1, “ accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats15/STD-Surveillance-2015-print.pdf. 19 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016. See Tom W. Smith, Peter V. Marsden, and Michael Hout, General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016 [machine-readable data file], (Sponsored by National Science Foundation. NORC ed. Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago) [producer and distributor]. 20 The number of women contracepting is from Mosher (1990) Table 4 and Daniels et al. (2015) Table 4, for 1982 and 2011-13, respectively. These estimates, both from the National Survey of Family Growth, are divided by the number of unmarried women ages 15-44, estimated from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey). 21 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2016 (Smith et al.) See also Jean M. Twenge, “Declines in Sexual Frequency among American Adults, 1989-2014,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 46, no. 8(2017), 2389-2401. 22 George H. Gallup, Jr., “Current Views on Premarital, Extramarital Sex,” Gallup, June 24, 2003, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.gallup.com/poll/8704/current-views-premarital-extramarital-sex.aspx. 23 “Birth Control, Divorce Top List of Morally Acceptable Issues,” Gallup, June 8, 2016, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.gallup.com/poll/192404/birth-control-divorce-top-list-morally-acceptable-issues.aspx. 24 General Social Survey, “Is it wrong to have sex before marriage?” accessed December 4, 2017, https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Gender%20&%20Marriage?measure=premarsx. 25 The “early 60s”estimate is for 1960-1964 and based on the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth. See William D. Mosher and Christine A. Bachrach, “First Premarital Contraceptive Use: United States, 1960-82,” Studies in Family Planning 18, no. 2(1987), 83-95. The “mid-80s” estimate is for 1983-1988 and based on the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth. See William D. Mosher and James W. McNally, “Contraceptive Use at First Premarital Intercourse: United States, 1965-1988,” Family Planning Perspectives 23, no. 3(1991), 108-116, Table 1. Women are asked retrospectively about the year they first had premarital sex and about which contraceptive methods were used. The most recent estimates are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital Health Statistics 23(29), August 2010, “Number of women aged 15–44 years whose first premarital sexual intercourse was after menarche, and percentage who used the specified contraceptive method at first intercourse, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2008,” Table 3, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf. 26 Social Capital Project calculations using previous studies. See Christine A. Bachrach, “Contraceptive Practice Among American Women, 1973-1982,” Family Planning Perspectives 16, no. 6(1984), 253-259, Table 1, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006–2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995, National Health Statistics Reports no. 60, by Jo Jones, William Mosher, and Kimberly Daniels, October 18, 2012, “Current use of a method of contraception by women aged 15–44 years, all women, and women at risk of unintended pregnancy, by selected characteristics: United States, 2006–2010,” Table 3, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr060.pdf. 27 Ibid. In addition, as discussed below, teen sexual activity rose through the 1980s and then remained elevated, but teen pregnancies declined. That decline must have been due to increased use of effective birth control. Indeed, pregnancies fell even more among sexually experienced teen women than among teen women generally. 28 U.S. Census Bureau, “Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994.” 29 In 1974, around 44 percent of nonmarital pregnancies ended in abortion, compared with 52 percent in 1984. Excluding fetal deaths, the estimates were 49 percent in 1974, 58 percent in 1979, and 55 percent in 1984. Social Capital Project computations. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. 30 In 2009, around 31 percent of nonmarital pregnancies ended in abortion (compared with 44 percent in 1974). Social Capital Project computations. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. 31 The number of abortion providers nationally fell by 43 percent from 1982 to 2014, while the number of abortions declined by around 41 percent. On the change in abortion providers, see Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, “Abortion Incidence and Services In the United States in 2000,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35, no. 1(2003), 6-15, and Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 49, no.1(2017), 17-27, Table 3. Number of abortions were computed by applying abortion rates to the number of women 15-44. Abortion rates are from Rachel K. Jones and Kathryn Kooistra, “Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43, no. 1(2011), 41-50, Table 1, and Jones and Jerman, “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States.” Number of women is from Social Capital Project analyses of data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey accessed via the IPUMS-CPS website (Flood et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey). 32 “Abortion,” Gallup, In Depth: Topics A to Z, accessed December 4, 2017, http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx. 33 Social Capital Project analyses of General Social Survey microdata, 1988-2012 (Smith et al.). 34 Social Capital Project analyses. See note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. We estimate the figure at 48 percent in the late 2000s (compared with 49 percent in the early 1980s). Note that intended births from nonmarital pregnancies are a smaller share of nonmarital pregnancies—32 percent—because many unintended pregnancies end in abortion or a fetal death rather than in a birth. 35 Social Capital Project computations. This conclusion is based on the trend in nonmarital pregnancies among childless women ages 15-29 leading to a first birth. See U.S. Census Bureau, “Trends in Premarital Childbearing.” These estimates ignore miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions. 36 Social Capital Project computations. See the note to Figure 15 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. 37 Ibid. 38 This conclusion is in contrast to a new paper finding that liberalized abortion policy was central to changes in family formation. See Caitlin Knowles Myers, “The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control,” Journal of Political Economy (forthcoming). We speculate that the difference has to do with the outcomes examined and the age ranges of women considered. Myers analyzes first marriages, first births, and shotgun marriages among women ages 15-22. 39 Social Capital Project computations. See the note to Figure 7 in the Source Notes at the end of this paper. Including miscarriage and stillbirths in pregnancies, the share ending in abortion in the early 1960s was 5 percent for married women and 29 percent for unmarried women, compared with 6 percent and 31 percent in the late 2000s. For our sensitivity analyses, we reestimated the 1960-1964 nonmarital and marital abortion ratios. For instance, instead of dividing the 1974 abortion ratio for nonmarried women to the 1974 abortion ratio of all women, and then applying that to the 1960-1964 abortion ratio, we used the 1979 abortion ratios for nonmarried and all women, which produced a smaller 1960-1964 nonmarital abortion ratio. We did the same to reestimate the 1960-1964 marital abortion ratio, but the difference was so small as to not affect our simulations. 40 Brink Lindsey, The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America’s Politics and Culture (New York: HarperBusiness, 2007); Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50, no. 4(1943), 370-396. 41 Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 42 Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions,” Journal of Political Economy 110, no. 4(2002), 730-770; Martha J. Bailey, “More Power to the Pill: The Impact of Contraceptive Freedom on Women’s Life Cycle Labor Supply,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 1(2006), 289-320. 43 Andrew M. Francis, “The Wages of Sin: How the Discovery of Penicillin Reshaped Modern Sexuality,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 42, no. 1(2013), 5-13. 44 George H. Gallup, Jr., “Current Views on Premarital, Extramarital Sex,” and “Birth Control, Divorce Top List of Morally Acceptable Issues,” Gallup. Similarly, General Social Survey data shows that in 1972, just 27 percent of adults said that having sex before marriage is “not wrong at all,” compared to 60 percent in 2016 who said that sex before marriage is “not wrong at all.” See General Social Survey, “Is it wrong to have sex before marriage?” 45 George A. Akerloff, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111, no. 2(1996), 277-317. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 (New York: Basic Book, 1984). 50 Scott Winship, “Will Welfare Reform Increase Upward Mobility?” Forbes, March 26, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/26/will-welfare-reform-increase-upward-mobility/#176969c03354. 51 Paul Krugman, “When Values Disappear,” New York Times, March 11, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/when-values-disappear/; Jordan Weissman, “There Aren’t Enough Marriageable Men,” Slate, September 24, 2014, accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/24/decline_of_marriage_pew_shows_there_aren_t_enough_marriageable_men.html; Alana Semuels, “When Factory Jobs Vanish, Men Become Less Desirable Partners,” The Atlantic, March 3, 2017, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/manufacturing-marriage-family/518280/. 52 See the chart in Scott Winship, “Overstating the Costs of Inequality,” National Affairs, Spring 2013, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/overstating-the-costs-of-inequality. 53 Scott Winship, “Declining Prime-Age Male Labor Force Participation: Why Demand- and Health-Based Explanations are Inadequate,” (Working Paper, Mercatus Center, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/winship-labor-force-participation-mercatus-v1.pdf; Scott Winship, “Economic Opportunity and Trump’s Win,” Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, November 9, 2016, accessed December 4, 2017, https://freopp.org/economic-opportunity-and-trumps-win-88eef4be5eb1; Scott Winship, “Is the ‘Decline’ in Men’s Earnings Behind Marriage’s Demise?” Forbes, March 16, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/16/is-the-decline-in-mens-earnings-at-the-bottom-behind-marriages-demise/#d6b3dc14ec40. 54 Scott Winship, “What’s behind Declining Male Labor Force Participation: Fewer Good Jobs, or Fewer Men Seeking Them?” Mercatus Center, 2017, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/winship_malelaborparticipation_mr_v2.pdf. 55 Winship, “Is the ‘Decline’ in Men’s Earnings Behind Marriage’s Demise?” , https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2015/03/16/is-the-decline-in-mens-earnings-at-the-bottom-behind-marriages-demise/#d6b3dc14ec40. 56 See the research cited in W. Bradford Wilcox, “Don’t be a bachelor: Why married men work harder, smarter and make more money,” Washington Post, April 2, 2015, accessed December 4, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/02/dont-be-a-bachelor-why-married-men-work-harder-and-smarter-and-make-more-money/?utm_term=.c523b7e60993. 57 David T. Ellwood and Christopher Jencks, “The Uneven Spread of Single-Parent Families: What Do We Know? Where Do We Look for Answers?” in Social Inequality, ed. Kathryn M. Neckerman (New York: Russell Sage, 2004), 3-78; Melissa S. Kearney and Riley Wilson, “Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom,” (Working Paper No. 23408, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017), accessed December 4, 2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w23408; Daniel T. Lichter, Diane K. McLaughlin, and David C. Ribar, “Economic Restructuring and the Retreat from Marriage,” Social Science Research 31, no. 2(2002), 230-256; Robert D. Mare and Christopher Winship, “Socioeconomic Change and the Decline of Marriage for Blacks and Whites,” in The Urban Underclass, eds. Christopher Jencks and Paul Peterson, (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1991), 175-202; Robert G. Wood, “Marriage Rates and Marriageable Men: A Test of the Wilson Hypothesis,” Journal of Human Resources 30, no. 1(1995), 163-193.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=4E13DC6F-3B53-4265-A284-FD0D90A658CB,The Wrong Man for Colombia,2017-12-08,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"President Trump recently nominated Joseph MacManus to become the next U.S. Ambassador to Colombia. At a time when the U.S.-Colombian relationship is vital to regional security and stability, both countries deserve better. The argument against Mr. MacManus has two parts. First, MacManus does not appear to share the president’s belief in an America First foreign policy. If the president wants his objectives to be accomplished around the world, it is critical that his political appointees to the State Department share his commitment to the task. What is MacManus committed to? It is hard to say for certain, but his background is cause for concern. MacManus is a career bureaucrat at the State Department who served as executive assistant to then-Secretary Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi disaster. He also worked as a top diplomat for then-Secretary John Kerry in implementing the Iran nuclear deal. A long career in diplomacy normally would be considered a positive qualification for a job at the State Department—but not when that career is tied to some of America's most egregious foreign-policy blunders. Second, MacManus does not have the expertise in Latin American affairs that we should demand for this sensitive position. All but one of the past six ambassadors to Columbia had previous experience as an ambassador. The exception, outgoing Ambassador Kevin Whitaker, spent practically his entire career in Latin American diplomacy, rising to the position of deputy assistant secretary for South America before becoming an ambassador. By contrast, MacManus’s experience in Latin America is limited to a period of time spent as a public diplomacy officer in Mexico and El Salvador. Political unrest is increasing across Latin America. From the growing authoritarian power of Maduro in Venezuela, to contested elections in Honduras, to the fragile peace deal between the Colombian government and FARC rebels, the United States is more reliant on Colombia than ever before. The nation is a strong ally—and it is our only NATO partner in the region. We give Columbia nearly a billion dollars in foreign assistance every year. Given the stakes, we should not roll the dice on a Foggy Bottom bureaucrat with a dubious track record.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=4BE2473B-B8F4-47AD-ADF4-965AFAE2F39B,A Big Win for Utahs Rural Communities,2017-12-08,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"President Trump won the White House for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest reason is that rural Americans are sick and tired of rich coastal elites telling them how to live their lives. President Trump may not be able to fulfill all of his campaign promises, but he has already delivered for Utah’s rural communities by coming to our state and limiting President Obama’s Bears Ears National Monument and President Clinton’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Make no mistake: President Obama’s Bears Ears monument was a project pushed and funded by wealthy East and West Coast liberals. The Hewlett and Packard foundations, as well as the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, gave tens of millions of dollars to supposedly “grassroots” Native American groups to campaign for a new monument. But local Native Americans—the people who actually live near Bears Ears and use the land—did not take the money. “The whole tone of it seems like the tribes are generally being used as pawns for the environmental groups to get what they really want,” Blue Mountain Dine’ Vice President Byron Clarke told the Deseret News. “They are being played. It is somewhat insulting.” “It seems pretty clear that the federal government over time tends to close down access,” Clarke later told me. “So just as a local user of the land, I have to ask myself what’s wrong with how we are using it right now? We can go hunt now, we can go fishing and cut wood now and it’s pristine.” Clarke is right. The federal government does restrict access to land where a national monument has been declared. That is the entire point of the Antiquities Act: to preserve cultural treasures on federal public land by restricting access to the land. That is also why the Antiquities Act requires that monument designations be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and maintenance of the objects to be protected.” Neither President Clinton nor President Obama respected that limitation. Instead of responsibly working with local communities to identify just the protections needed to preserve cultural sites in San Juan and Garfield counties, they made million acre designations that were designed to transform the economic life of surrounding residents. “Creation of jobs for tourism will be a benefit to the community versus those that could be lost by some of the mineral and energy jobs,” Clarke told me. “I think for a lot of Navajos we are skilled people, we have skills other than restaurant workers and gas station attendants. We are engineers. We are heavy equipment operators. We are welders. Those are good jobs rather than the tourism type jobs which tend to be seasonal.” Ranching families also are hit hard by the restrictions that come with monument designations. After land-use restrictions at the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument kicked in, Garfield County ranchers could no longer bring water in to their cattle. Their ability to fence in water resources and maintain roads was also limited. Many families were forced to signigicantly reduce their herds, sometimes by half. The corporations pushing for monument land-use restrictions, like Patagonia and REI, claim that the monuments will create tourism jobs for the residents of Garfield and San Juan county. And they are right: the monuments do create tourism jobs. But at what cost? Moab resident Jon Kovash warns in the High Country Times that “Tourism also brings sprawling growth, crappy jobs, even-higher rents and home prices, and an increasingly unmanageable crush of visitors and traffic.” Maybe the rich coastal liberals and their corporate pals are right. Maybe tourism is the answer for economic development in rural America. But shouldn’t that choice be made by the residents who live there? Shouldn’t the people who actually live near the land decide how best to use it? And maybe, just maybe, the same people who used land restrictions in their own cities to create sky-high housing prices and crushing inequality shouldn’t be in the business of telling other people how to use their land. More needs to be done to protect Utah’s rural communities from future Democratic presidents. We need Congress to give Utah the same Antiquities Act protections that Alaska and Wyoming have. But until then, President Trump’s monument reductions are a good first step. Utah thanks him.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=6732577A-689C-42FA-B030-D1DF70D1D67E,Hatch and Wyden Lead Bipartisan Senators in Urging Extension of Secure Rural Schools Program,2017-12-07,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) led a bipartisan group of 32 senators in sending a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), urging them to include a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Program in any end-of-year legislation. SRS supports public schools, public roads, forest health projects, emergency services, and many other essential county services for more than 775 counties across the country. The SRS program expired on September 30, 2015, and it has not been reauthorized for FY16 or beyond. Forest counties and schools received their last authorized SRS payment in 2016. Without SRS, existing revenue-sharing payments are not sufficient to support critical services these counties must provide. The Senators wrote: The SRS program continues to be a critical safety-net for forest counties as we work to diversify rural economies, improve forest management and forest health, strengthen historic forest revenue sharing with local governments, and ensure that our forests provide a range of values such as clean water, jobs, and wood fiber for local economies. In the interest of working together in a bipartisan way to support local rural communities, we ask that you include a reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools in any end-of-the-year legislation. We appreciate your assistance with this matter.  In addition to Hatch and Wyden, senators who signed the letter include: Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael F. Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), John Boozman (R-AR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Dean Heller (R-NV), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Joe Manchin III (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeffery A. Merkley (D-OR), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Patty Murray (D-WA), Gary Peters (D-MI), James E. Risch (R-ID), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Roger Wicker (R-MS). The full letter, as delivered, is attached and below: December 6, 2017 The Honorable Mitch McConnell                                              The Honorable Chuck Schumer Majority Leader, U.S. Senate                                                    Minority Leader, U.S. Senate U.S. Capitol, S-230                                                                  U.S. Capitol, S-221 Washington, DC 20510                                                             Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Schumer:         We write to strongly urge the inclusion of at least a two-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program, which enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, in any end-of-the-year legislation.          On U.S. Forest Service land, the federal government has historically shared 25 percent of timber harvest revenues with counties to compensate for federal ownership. On certain land managed by the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Land Management shares 50 percent of the revenue from federal timber sales with counties. Due to declining timber harvests, a critical source of funding for rural counties, sometimes referred to as “forest counties,” has seen significant decreases, often decimating impacted county budgets.         In 2000, Congress passed SRS with broad bipartisan support as a fiscal solution to help fund essential services resulting from the reduced revenue-sharing receipts. Since then, SRS has been a critical lifeline for over 775 counties in over 40 states across the country by helping fund more than 4,400 schools, road maintenance, law enforcement, and search and rescue operations.  However, SRS authorization lapsed last year and rural counties are now back to simply receiving the timber revenue-sharing receipts. These receipts are up to 80 percent less than what forest counties received under SRS.         We are now witnessing firsthand the hardships rural counties face as a result of SRS authorization lapsing. Without the certainty of SRS payments, schools, libraries, and jails are closing. Schools that remain open will see a reduction of teachers. Roads go unpaved and become unsafe. Mental and physical health services are scaled back or even ended. Fewer and fewer law enforcement officers are forced to patrol larger and larger areas.          The SRS program continues to be a critical safety-net for forest counties as we work to diversify rural economies, improve forest management and forest health, strengthen historic forest revenue sharing with local governments, and ensure that our forests provide a range of values such as clean water, jobs, and wood fiber for local economies.         In the interest of working together in a bipartisan way to support local rural communities, we ask that you include a reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools in any end-of-the-year legislation. We appreciate your assistance with this matter.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=745,Rep. Love Statement on Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's Capital,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"""To recognize the beautiful city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is to recognize a reality that Congress has officially acknowledged several times.  Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel for over three thousand years.  I'm proud that the United States stands by, appreciates, and recognizes the sovereignty of our good friend and ally, Israel.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=746,"Rep. Love Supports Gun Rights, Background Check Bill",2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"Here is a statement from Rep. Love on passage of H.R. 38: “Today, I voted for a bipartisan bill that strengthens public safety and protects Americans’ Constitutional Rights.  H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, ensures law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights don’t end when they cross state lines.  It also updates the background check reporting requirements for states to better ensure anyone with a criminal background can’t obtain a firearm permit.”   “The Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’.  Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry to another state, if they have passed the permit process in their home state.  At the same time, people with certain criminal or certain mental health histories should not be allowed to have a permit, which is why it’s important to strengthen background checks.”  “In light of recent cruel attacks, this bill is a critical update to our laws when it comes to firearms and our Second Amendment Rights.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-announces-new-national-park-in-utah,Rep. Stewart Announces New National Park in Utah,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) introduced legislation to create Utah’s sixth National Park, Escalante Canyons Park and Preserve, H.R. 4558. “With their deep narrow canyons, high plateaus, sheer cliffs, incredible vistas, and vibrant colors, the Escalante Canyons are a crown jewel in the state,” Rep. Stewart said. “Escalante Canyons National Park is a win-win for those wanting conservation and access. It’s a win-win for those who want to share the beauty of this state but also to preserve the local culture that is so important to our communities. Additionally, this bill gives locals a stronger voice in how their backyard is managed.” “There is a reason I live in Utah. I love it here! I love to ski. I love to hike and rock climb. I love these lands. I want to preserve them, and I believe Utahans are better suited to manage our lands than bureaucrats back in Washington.”  Specifically the Grand Staircase Escalante Enhancement Act:   Creates Utah’s sixth national park – Escalante Canyons National Park ​The new park conserves this nationally important area while allowing access for hunting, fishing, trapping, and grazing. The park maps are still being finalized by the local communities, but the boundaries will fall within the newly created Escalante Canyons Unit of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.   Transfers “Hole in the Rock Road” to the state of Utah in recognition of this historically significant Mormon pioneer trail.   Creates a “Management Council” comprised of local officials to draft and oversee a management plan for the new monument and National Park, giving local leaders a powerful voice and seat at the table.   This bill codifies the boundaries of the new Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, as outlined by President Trump.   For a PDF copy of the bill, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=27225EE7-E52E-432E-8B02-69793F213191,Hatch Statement on President Trumps Israel Announcement,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, issued the following statement on the President’s Israel announcement: “I am thrilled with the President’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and his plan to move the US Embassy there. When I spoke to General McMaster yesterday, I was able to ask him a number of logistical details about the move. During my conversation with the National Security Advisor, I expressed my full support for the President’s decision, which takes into careful consideration the needs of America’s allies—both in the region and around the world. I have long supported the recognition of Jerusalem as the official Israeli capital, most notably as a co-sponsor of the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, which my colleagues introduced to the Senate in January. The President’s action, which reaffirms US legislation that has been on the books since 1995, sends a clear signal that we are prepared to defend the interests of the United States and its allies.” Senator Hatch on the phone with General McMaster yesterday discussing the announcement",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=472258F4-054F-489A-B0AF-14AD5F019336,"In Access Live Event, Hatch Reaffirms Concern about Roy Moore",2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—In an access live call this evening with Utahns, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), reaffirmed his previously stated concerns regarding the allegations against Judge Roy Moore, and spoke about what would happen next should he be elected to the United States Senate: Let me be very clear from the outset. I have not endorsed Roy Moore, I do not intend to, and I believe the allegations against him are incredibly serious.   As you know, I endorsed and fought hard for Luther Strange in the Alabama Republican primary. I like Luther, and I thought he was an excellent Senator. And I’ve been deeply disturbed by the accusations made against Roy Moore.   I was one of the first in the Senate to urge Roy Moore to step aside and to urge Alabamans to consider an alternative.   But I’ve also said that in the end, the decision is in the hands of the people of Alabama.   Now, that being said, serving in the Senate is a privilege, and here, we hold our members to the highest ethical standards. And I expect any of my colleagues to adhere to those standards.     Should Moore win, the Majority Leader has said that the Senate will hold an ethics investigation, and I expect that to be thorough.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=3BCD0DF4-2F65-4859-B974-4F8A984BF2F0,Sen. Lee Applauds President Trump's Jerusalem Announcement,2017-12-06,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Wednesday after President Trump issued a proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “I applaud President Trump’s proclamation and join him in recognizing that both throughout history and today, Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel,” Sen. Lee said. “The President has also been bold in directing that the State Department expeditiously begin to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, following the international custom of having official diplomatic representation in national capitals around the globe. “While a new location is being selected for the US Embassy, the US government will continue to serve American citizens in the region and Palestinians through our consulate in Jerusalem, just as it has done for decades since the US presence in Jerusalem was established as a consulate in 1928. ""We continue to hope for peace and longtime stability between Israelis and Palestinians, but the US can no longer wait to do the right thing in recognizing the nation’s rightful capital.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=742,Rep. Mia Love Urges DACA Legislation,2017-12-05,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Love joined 31 Congressional colleagues to urge Speaker Ryan to prioritize the passage of a legislative solution for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients before the holidays. Specifically, the letter supports a permanent legislative solution that protects this population with a balanced approach “that does not harm valuable sectors of our economy nor the lives of these hard-working young people.” “Thousands of DACA recipients live and work in my district, contributing to their community daily,” said Rep. Love. “I have no interest in separating them from what is likely the only country they know. The timeline imposed by the Administration’s announcement compels us to act.  It is crucial that we bring a reasonable solution to the House floor, so we can provide certainty to this Utah population that contributes to our communities and growing economy.” Rep. Love is a cosponsor of the Recognizing America’s Children (RAC) Act (H.R. 1468), which provides a pathway for DACA recipients to permanently remain in the country. She has pushed for a legislative solution for young, undocumented immigrants since the Trump Administration’s announcement regarding the DACA program earlier this year.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-stewart-s-statement-regarding-president-trump-s-announcement-on,Rep. Stewarts Statement Regarding President Trumps Announcement on National Monuments,2017-12-04,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Salt Lake City, Utah – Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement in response to President Trump’s announcement on the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments: “The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument resides in my district. I have seen firsthand the damage that the monument has caused to the local economy. My constituents have been in a desperate need of change, and today President Trump delivered.”   “President Trump had the courage that no other president had. He listened to local voices that had been left out of the decision-making process for too long. On behalf of the county commissioners, the state legislators who represent the area, and the entire federal delegation, we say thank you, Mr. President.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C0858861-6F91-42DA-AF41-B0DC73E21796,Sen. Lee Thanks President Trump for First Step in Protecting Utahs Rural Communities,2017-12-04,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY – Sen. Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Monday after President Trump announced significant reductions to both the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments. “President Trump did the people of Utah a great favor today by rolling back harmful land use restrictions in southern Utah,” Sen. Lee said. “The president has done his part and now it is time for Congress to act to protect the people of Utah from federal overreach in the future. That is why I will be introducing legislation later this week that would give Utah similar protections from Antiquities Act abuse that the states of Wyoming and Alaska currently enjoy.” Sen. Lee’s bill will empower state and local officials and Tribal members to manage the new national monuments designated in southern Utah by President Trump. The bill will also require the approval of Congress and the Utah state legislature for all future national monuments in the state.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=2BBF10D4-F71D-4A2C-9795-98B41041B5BF,Hatchs Historic Tax Reform Proposal Passes in the Senate,2017-12-02,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"“Senate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans.” WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement and spoke in a press conference after the Senate passed his historic tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last night: Video Via YouTube  “Senate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans,” Hatch said. “Rooted in pro-growth policies, this legislation will help families and individuals invest in their future, promote savings, and encourage American job creators to keep more jobs and investment here at home. The measure also takes a critical step forward in improving our nation’s flawed and unworkable healthcare system. By effectively repealing the regressive Obamacare individual mandate tax, we are putting Americans in charge of their health care and giving them the freedom to choose the best coverage for themselves and their families.” ?“This landmark achievement is the culmination of months of hard work and cooperation among Finance Committee members; leaders from the Senate, House and administration; and the entire Senate Republican Conference. It reflects a shared desire to produce a tax system that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family, and will move our country forward to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.” Video of final passage: The President later tweeted thanks to Hatch and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with a video featuring Senator Hatch’s remarks: @RealDonaldTrump: We are one step closer to delivering MASSIVE tax cuts for working families across America. Special thanks to @SenateMajLdr Mitch McConnell and Chairman @SenOrrinHatch for shepherding our bill through the Senate. Look forward to signing a final bill before Christmas!",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=13D0AFB8-30A3-4AA9-950C-EF0A07E199F9,Hatchs Historic Tax Reform Proposal Passes in the Senate,2017-12-02,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"“Senate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans.” WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following statement and spoke in a press conference after the Senate passed his historic tax overhaul, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Video Via YouTube “Senate Republicans today came together to make history and advance a comprehensive tax overhaul that will deliver more income, more jobs, higher wages and more opportunity for all Americans,” Hatch said. “Rooted in pro-growth policies, this legislation will help families and individuals invest in their future, promote savings, and encourage American job creators to keep more jobs and investment here at home. The measure also takes a critical step forward in improving our nation’s flawed and unworkable healthcare system. By effectively repealing the regressive Obamacare individual mandate tax, we are putting Americans in charge of their health care and giving them the freedom to choose the best coverage for themselves and their families.” ?“This landmark achievement is the culmination of months of hard work and cooperation among Finance Committee members; leaders from the Senate, House and administration; and the entire Senate Republican Conference. It reflects a shared desire to produce a tax system that is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family, and will move our country forward to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.” Video of final passage: Via YouTube",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=2AA6333F-C036-4A0B-9E80-C5B4340F0224,Sen. Lee Statement on Passage of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,2017-12-02,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Saturday after the United States Senate passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. “Utah families are the big winners tonight thanks to the doubling of the child tax credit to $2,000,” Sen. Lee said. “I wish we could have done more for working families by making that credit refundable, but we did lay the groundwork for future pro-family tax reform and I am confident we will get there someday.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=741,Rep. Love: No More Taxpayer-Funded Settlements for Sexual Harassment,2017-12-01,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C. – Outraged by the use of taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Mia Love has introduced Stop Taxpayer Obligations to Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment (STOP) Act in the House of Representatives.  The bill would stop the practice of making payments to settle these cases on behalf of members of Congress. “Taxpayers should not be paying to settle these cases, just because the accused happens to be a member of Congress,” Rep. Love said.  “If someone behaves badly, the consequences to those actions are that person’s responsibility, and no one else’s.”  Currently, claims are settled within Congress for a variety of workplace violations.  The STOP Act prohibits payment in claims involving sexual harassment by members of Congress. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=294439DE-ABF3-4AF9-A289-AB9C4CAF7F98,Judges and Religious Liberty,2017-12-01,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"by Senator Orrin Hatch [LINK] When it comes to debates over jurisprudence, the dividing lines can prove very real. Even when we transcend the typical political fault lines — even when we move to the substance that exists beyond the tired and boilerplate talking points — questions of judicial philosophy tend to divide. Those on the Right, generally speaking, emphasize the importance of the rule of law and the protection of liberty inherent in abiding by its strictures. Those on the Left commonly stress the need for flexible judicial methods, with an eye toward outcomes sensitive to the times and what the times require. And yet, for all of our differences, the principles on which we agree are important and numerous. Certain basic principles, certain fundamental tenets, are shared across the divide. Though the terms of implementation tend to be controversial, we all agree that Due Process, for instance, is a worthy end in and of itself. Ours is a system that holds government to a high bar before it molests or penalizes its citizens. We all agree that First Amendment liberties are a prized element of the constitutional order. Ours is a system which errs on the side of free speech, and free assembly, and free press. Such a common devotion to common principles is what keeps us grounded; it’s what keeps the system — for all its divisions — from fraying entirely. That is why I, along with so many others, find the recent trends in religious liberty so concerning. What was once considered a commonly espoused and honored cornerstone of our system has become, increasingly, a touchstone in the divide between Right and Left. It’s a dangerous development. Religious liberty was, in several critical ways, the first freedom of our system. Its explicit protection is the first injunction commanded by the First Amendment. Ingrained deeply in our culture and in our institutions, its expression has proven central to the national character. Our Constitution allows no establishment of religion, and permits no undue restraint upon its exercise, such that our citizens may make their own determinations on matters of conscience. This basic principle used to be widely shared. It used to be one of the few matters that spanned the divide. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, I was a principal author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That bill passed unanimously in the House of Representatives, and nearly unanimously in the Senate. For all of our divisions, for all of our disagreements, we all managed to find common ground in defense of religious liberty. And yet today, where do we find ourselves? In a recent judicial confirmation hearing, a nominee was asked, explicitly, “do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” That same nominee was told that, upon review of her record, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” Statements like that can be taken only as the imposition of some kind of religious test for holding office. Nothing could be more repugnant to our values of religious freedom and liberty. The Supreme Court, in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, recently rebuked the State of Missouri for relying on old statutory and constitutional vestiges of anti-Catholic bigotry to deny religious schools the same public aid as afforded to non-religious institutions. The state had denied those benefits for no reason other than affiliation with a religious institution. In cases like Trinity Lutheran and controversies from Hobby Lobby to the Zubik v. Burwell, there is a new pressure on those living and espousing their faith. And yet, unlike in the past, there is no longer a chorus of voices—from both sides of the aisle—standing up for religious liberty. There is no longer a broad, bipartisan agreement that religious rights are not to be tampered with, demeaned, overlooked, or casually brushed aside. More and more, religious liberty is treated as an afterthought to those making policy and as an inconvenience to those carrying it out. More and more, it proves a quick rhetorical box to check before moving on to matters deemed more important. This country’s protection of religious liberty — unique in the world and through most of history — is too rare, and was won upon the sacrifice of too many, to be quietly disregarded for falling out of the popularity of the times. I, for one, plan to keep speaking to this issue. In 2015, I delivered a series of eight speeches on the Senate floor about the importance of religious liberty. My message then was the same as my message today: Religious liberty is a bedrock principle of the American political order. Its protection is of the highest order and the greatest priority. It is not merely one of many values, to be weighed against other competing social and political goals, and discarded when inconvenient. Nearly all of my Senate colleagues at one time agreed on the preeminence of religious liberty among our constitutional freedoms. We should all hope that we get back to that point again.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=A30864A2-599F-4050-98A6-A07394F43A81,"Sens. Rubio, Lee Reaffirm Commitment to Child Tax Credit Expansion",2017-12-01,2017,2017-12,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL.) and Mike Lee (R-UT) today reaffirmed their commitment to expanding access to the child tax credit in the Senate tax reform bill. “Our amendment would make a small change in this bill, but a huge difference in the lives of working families,” Senator Lee said. ""We need pro-growth and pro-worker tax reform, and that’s what this amendment aims to do by allowing working families to keep more of their own hard-earned money,” Senator Rubio said. Both senators added: “Currently, our amendment would offset the additional middle class relief with a slight increase in the corporate tax rate. We support that pay-for and believe it gives our amendment a good chance to pass on the floor with bipartisan support. But as we have said all along, we are open to alternative offsets that would preserve the 20% corporate rate, which we support as much as our Republican colleagues. We continue to welcome any effort by Finance Committee members and Republican leaders to help us identify other pay-fors to offset an expansion of the child credit.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=726146E2-8690-4D7F-9812-A78C98DF1EF2,Hatch: Im thrilled the President has accepted my invitation to come to Utah on Monday.,2017-11-30,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"“I believe the outcome he is planning to announce on public lands strikes an excellent balance where everyone wins.” Washington, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, spoke on video today about the President’s upcoming visit to Utah on Monday. Senator Hatch has worked assiduously to arrange the President’s visit over the last several months, including a meeting with leaders of the LDS Church and an opportunity to discuss the future of our national monuments. President Trump credited Hatch for his decision to make a new monument proclamation during a phone call last month in which the President said, “I’m approving the Bears Ears recommendation for you, Orrin.” On video, Hatch said: I’m thrilled the President has accepted my invitation to come to the great state of Utah on Monday. I’ve arranged for President Trump to meet with leaders from the LDS Church at Welfare Square, which is one of the greatest symbols of Utahn’s service, perseverance, and self-reliance. He’ll also be discussing public lands, and the future of our national monuments. I believe the outcome he is planning to announce strikes an excellent balance where everyone wins. I look forward to showing the President our great state next week. On the President’s upcoming proclamation concerning the future of Utah’s monuments, Hatch said: The details of the President’s announcement are his and his alone to make, but I appreciate his willingness to listen to my advice and even more importantly, to give the people of Utah a voice in this process. I believe his proclamation, following Secretary Zinke’s fair, thorough, and inclusive review, will represent a balanced solution and a win for everyone on all sides of this issue.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-and-bonamici-introduce-the-victims-voice-and-transparency-act,Stewart and Bonamici Introduce the Victims Voice and Transparency Act,2017-11-29,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon) introduced the Victims’ Voice and Transparency Act. This legislation allows victims of sexual misconduct on Capitol Hill to release the names of the accused and the settlement payment amounts, if they so choose. Currently, victims are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement as part of the settlement process through the Office of Compliance. This legislation would remove this requirement, giving the victim the option to speak.  “Victims of sexual misconduct deserve a voice and the American people deserve the utmost level of transparency,” Stewart said. “I have been disheartened to see the frequency of sexual harassment and assault incidents in the news. This culture of silence is unacceptable. We must continue shedding light on this issue so victims can be heard.” “I’m proud to introduce bipartisan legislation that will lift the secrecy surrounding taxpayer-funded sexual harassment settlements, and give victims the right to talk about their experiences publicly,” Bonamici said. “The current requirement that victims enter into nondisclosure agreements creates a dangerous culture of secrecy and silence. Victims should not be required to sign away their rights in exchange for justice. The American people deserve a transparent government and they should know about the actions of their elected representatives.” The Office of Compliance oversees the House of Representatives, the Senate, Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, the Office of the Congressional Accessibility Services, and also includes employees working in district or state offices as well as those in Washington, DC. For a PDF copy of the bill, click here. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=466FD61E-1971-4B10-9B05-7D2C21C2FBFB,Sens. Lee and Rubio to Introduce Child Tax Credit Refundability Amendment,2017-11-29,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) will introduce an amendment to the Senate tax bill that would give working American families a far larger share of tax relief than the existing bill currently does. Senators Rubio and Lee explained: “We have a chance to do better by working families in this tax bill. Right now, 70 percent of the tax cuts we’re considering would go to businesses, and only 30 percent to individuals. This amendment would level the playing field for families, while still kick-starting national investment and growth. By increasing access to the Child Tax Credit, we can increase working family fairness and deliver overdue relief to America’s greatest investor class: our moms and dads.” Specifically the Rubio-Lee amendment would: · Make the Child Tax Credit refundable up to payroll tax liability (15.3 percent of earnings). · Fix the marriage penalty by reducing the income phaseout threshold for the Child Tax Credit to $250,000 for all non-married filing jointly filers. · Index the Child Tax Credit to chained CPI in accordance with other individual-side provisions. · Increase the corporate income tax rate to 22 percent, to fully pay for the above changes.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=27B69473-C318-44FE-A0F7-C95764FF7B56,"November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Summit County",2017-11-28,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Henefer When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 2:30 PM 4:00 PM Where: Henefer Town Hall, 150 W Center Street, Henefer, UT 84033",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=4A08DC97-B2D4-4D83-A0A1-00C1EF9DE668,"November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Box Elder County",2017-11-28,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Perry When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 9:00 AM 10:30 AM Where: Perry City Office, 3005 S 1200 W, Perry, UT 84302",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=794A77CA-97E7-4150-965D-03B9B74ADAB1,"November 28, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Weber County",2017-11-28,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Roy When: Tuesday November 28th, 2017 @ 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Where: Roy City Offices, 5051 S 1900 W, Roy, UT 84067 (Conference Room)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=C4CCD7BF-F8B9-4958-80D5-C34D6485175A,Sen. Lee Statement on MacManus Nomination,2017-11-28,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON –Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement today regarding the nomination of Joseph MacManus to be the US Ambassador to Colombia: ""I was extremely disappointed to learn that Joseph MacManus has been nominated to become the United States ambassador to Colombia,” Sen. Lee said. ""At a time when we should be cleaning up the State Department and realigning our foreign-policy priorities to reflect those of the current administration, an Obama-era diplomat is not the right person to head our embassy in Colombia, a critical U.S. ally in the region.” President Trump announced the nomination last Tuesday, November 21.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=CE4D80DB-256F-4A95-A402-6BDD14937274,Sen. Lee Statement on CFPB Leadership,2017-11-27,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement today regarding the current leadership dispute at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau: ""While created with the best of intentions, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a poorly designed, unaccountable, and ultimately unconstitutional agency. This latest controversy isn’t about President Trump or consumer protection. It is about the protection of individual liberty embedded into the United States Constitution through the separation of powers. The duly elected President of the United States has chosen Mick Mulvaney to be the Acting Director of the CFPB and anyone else who claims they have that title is acting illegally.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=781F1430-9F0A-40D6-B81F-7122FD0B281B,Sen. Orrin Hatch: The special relationship between the UK and America makes the world a safer place,2017-11-24,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By Senator Orrin G. Hatch ""Your problems will be our problems, and when you look for friends, we shall be there."" I thought about this promise made by Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan during my official visit to London this week. The United States and the United Kingdom share a powerful alliance that is unique among nations. In my meetings with Prime Minister May, senior leaders of government, and English clergy, we discussed the need to strengthen this alliance to meet the challenges of an increasingly chaotic world. It is this friendship, this “special relationship,” that was the center of my conversation with Prime Minister Theresa May. Our special relationship with the United Kingdom is built on a foundation of shared values. The Prime Minister outlined these values best when she introduced herself to President Trump earlier this year as “a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party…. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism—and putting power in the hands of the people.” Prime Minister May and I agreed that these very principles—of working hard to empower the people and to leave the world a better place—should guide our efforts in the fight against terrorism.  Addressing the threat of homegrown radicalization by jihadist groups requires an approach that protects our citizens’ safety just as it does their liberties. That’s why MI5 Director General Andrew Parker and I agreed on the importance of creating a clear legal framework to facilitate the sharing of electronic data between our two countries.  In coordination with UK officials, I am finalizing data-sharing legislation that would protect the rights of citizens while also giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. It is this type of close collaboration, driven by shared principles and shared objectives, that exemplifies the unique ability of our two countries to build a more secure and prosperous world. For many years, the United Kingdom and the United States have worked closely to fight terrorist groups overseas, ISIS being foremost among such groups. Ultimately, victory over ISIS will come with the revival of human rights, democratic principles, and freedom in the Middle East. But this revival won’t happen on its own; we must speed it along by taking President Reagan’s approach: to use “a humanitarian velvet glove backed by a steel fist of military force.” This approach will help us win freedom for the people of Syria and Iraq. And make no mistake: these people desperately need our help. In my conversation with the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt. Revd. Christopher Chessun, I learned of the horrific violence perpetrated against Christians in Syria and the desecration of ancient heritage sites. Throughout his many travels to the region, Bishop Chessun has been a strong advocate on behalf of Syria’s victimized communities. By partnering with UK government officials and ecclesiastical leaders, we can build alliances at all levels of society to protect the most vulnerable. The experiences of marginalized communities such as Christians in Syria remind us that the struggle for human freedom is ongoing—and the need to promote individual liberty is more urgent today than ever before.  That’s why I emphasized the importance of defending democracy in a special address I delivered to the students of Oxford University. The university invited me to speak in commemoration of President Reagan’s historic address to the Oxford Union twenty-five years ago. In my remarks, I reminded the audience that from the same podium, President Reagan had announced the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, an initiative I am proud to have championed in Congress. The NED’s role is as important as ever in promoting peace, order, and security in troubled regions across the world. As President Reagan said, “the only cure for what ails democracy is more democracy.” Just as in Reagan’s time, our world is witness to evil ideologies that threaten the lives and liberty of innocent civilians. But the historic friendship between the United Kingdom and the United States—and our commitment to shared values–will ensure that the cause of freedom will prevail.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=737,Rep. Love Statement on Temporary Protected Status Expiration,2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"""I disagree with the Trump administration's decision to terminate TPS protections for Haiti in July 2019. I saw the conditions in that country myself, and witnessed the struggle for the people who are still living in desperate situations. I have spoken with the country's  leaders, and it's clear to me that the nation will not be prepared to support this population in the coming months."" ""I look forward to continuing the work with my colleagues across the aisle to protect these people through a fair and orderly process.  I recently cosponsored the ASPIRE Act (H.R. 4384) to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation or other proposals that offer appropriate protections."" ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=F6810E88-7DFD-48CD-A6C5-47DE696EAD4D,"At Oxford Student Union, Hatch Speaks on Ronald Reagans Enduring Vision",2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"LONDON—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, delivered the following remarks at the Oxford Student Union on November 21, 2017:  It’s great to be back in the United Kingdom. You know, when I told my youngest granddaughter I was coming, she got so excited. She loves rock and roll history, especially the Beatles. So when she asked what I remembered about the British Invasion, I told her everything. I told her about the media frenzy, the screaming crowds, and the public panic that ensued when the British beat us back at the Battle of Bunker Hill. And I told her how relieved we all were when the King’s troops got back on their ships and sailed back to England.   The Revolutionary War was an awkward time for US-UK relations. But hopefully my being here is a sign that we’ve put our differences behind us.    Now for the record, like my granddaughter, I am a huge Beatles fan. And I’ll never forget the audience’s reaction when they played their first set in America: hundreds of women crying hysterically, screaming at the top of their lungs, and fainting en masse. I find that I usually have the same effect on people.   You think I’m joking, but I’m not. In the hundreds of speeches I’ve given over the years, I’ve made plenty of people faint. Some have even died of their boredom. When audience members start falling to the floor, that’s usually my sign that it’s time to wrap up.   In seriousness, it’s a privilege to be here. Twenty-five years ago Ronald Reagan stood before this very body and said that of the many honors he’d received in his life, few could match the experience of standing at this podium, speaking to this distinguished audience. I feel the same way standing before you today. Who would ever have thought that this son of a metal lather, who was born in poverty in a Pennsylvania steel town, would one day have the opportunity to speak in this celebrated hall—a place where kings and prime ministers, captains of industry and cultural icons have contested the great issues of their time.   I can just imagine Disraeli and Gladstone duking it out right here in this very room. In fact, I don’t have to imagine it. I saw it last time I was here.   I’m doubly honored to be here today to mark the 25th anniversary of President Reagan’s address to this body and to share some remarks in his memory.   To many of you, I expect—perhaps to most of you—Ronald Reagan is a figure you read about in books. Many of you likely have no memory of his presidency. Many of you probably were not even alive during it.   But to me, Ronald Reagan is more than a historical figure. He was a dear friend, and an ally in some of my earliest political battles.   Indeed, Ronald Reagan played an important role in my very first run for the Senate.   I remember well the day in March 1976 when my wife and I gathered around our television set to watch the future President deliver an address entitled To Restore America. Reagan was then a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, running against Gerald Ford. In that speech, Reagan sounded a number of themes that later became hallmarks of his presidency. He talked about how he felt America had a divine purpose, a rendezvous with destiny, and how the American spirit unleashed was one of the greatest forces for good our world had ever known. Reagan’s words inspired me. They electrified me. In part because of his stirring message that night, six weeks later I filed papers to run for the U.S. Senate.   Reagan’s role in my race wasn’t over. Following a closely fought nominating convention, I faced a tight primary race against a well-known, well-connected opponent. I was the outsider in the race. People accused me of being a carpetbagger—a fake Utahn—because I was not born in the state.   On the eve of the primary election, and with the polls still close, Ronald Reagan endorsed me. I’ve been told it was his first, and only, primary endorsement ever. Reagan’s endorsement provided an extra surge of energy to my campaign, and with that support, I went on to win the primary and the general election as well.   I’ll always be grateful for the inspiration and the support Ronald Reagan provided me in that first campaign, back when I was a political novice, a political nobody. The telegram with his endorsement—yes, we still used telegrams in those days—hangs in my office. It’s one of my favorite mementos, and a reminder of the signal role Ronald Reagan played in my life.   You know, Reagan and I actually shared a lot in common. Yes, we were both conservatives. And yes, we were both movie stars. Or often mistaken for movie stars.   But there was also more.   We both started off as Democrats, for one thing. He, a Hollywood liberal. I, a blue-collar tradesman. We both idolized Franklin Roosevelt but later became disaffected with a Democratic Party that seemed to believe that government was the answer to all of life’s ills and that seemed embarrassed about America’s role in the world.   We both came from humble circumstances but found success through grit, determination, and a belief in hard work. I like to think our backgrounds helped us connect with everyday Americans who didn’t enjoy privileged childhoods or fancy schools.   Not that there’s anything wrong with fancy schools, of course. They tend to have excellent judgment in selecting speakers, for example.   But our experiences coming up from humble circumstances, I think, helped us understand the challenges so many people face just to put food on the table and a roof over their head. It also gave us a great love for America, because we knew firsthand that in America, one’s beginnings don’t have to determine one’s future.   Now, up to this point I’ve focused on my own experience with Ronald Reagan. But I’m far from the only person whose life he affected. Indeed, it’s difficult to overstate the impact Ronald Reagan had on my country, and on the world as a whole.   Three decades removed from his presidency, I think we take much of what he accomplished for granted. For many or most in this room, communism has always been dead, America has always been the global economic leader, and our best days have always appeared to lie ahead. But when Ronald Reagan took office, none of that was a given.   Start with communism. The Cold War may seem like a distant relic at this point, but I assure you, it was a very real struggle with very real consequences for all of us. And I say all of us because that includes those here today who had not yet been born.   Arrayed against the values of freedom, liberty, and individual choice was an ideology that exalted centralized control, stamped out personal freedom, and sent millions of men, women, and children to early graves.   I know it’s fashionable these days to want to rewrite history and to challenge established views. But I tell you, as sure as I stand before you today, that communism was evil. It was a plague on our planet. A triumphant Soviet Union would have meant the end of individual liberty as we knew it in the West. It would have meant the end of freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of the press. Even a draw in the Cold War would have meant decades of continuing geopolitical uncertainty and an ever-present danger of nuclear war.   When Reagan took office in 1980, communism was on the upswing and American power was in retreat. The USSR had recently invaded Afghanistan and was strengthening its grip over Eastern Europe. There was good reason to think the Soviet Bloc would persist well into the next century and beyond.   And it wasn’t just the Soviets. The year prior, America had been humiliated when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. There followed a disastrous failed rescue mission that seemed only to underscore American impotence.   America was in retreat economically as well. Unemployment was high, GDP was stagnant, and double-digit inflation had become a way of life. The word that came to define this era, coined following a pessimistic speech in which President Carter told Americans to turn down their thermostats and stop driving as much, was malaise.   Ronald Reagan would have none of this. Always an optimist, he told Americans that their best days were in front of them. He said the present gloom was a passing spell, the result of failed leadership and an overreliance on Washington bureaucracy.   As president, he sounded many of the same themes that had inspired my run for the Senate. He spoke of the American spirit and American ingenuity. He described our country as a choice land—a shining city on a hill—with a mission and an obligation to safeguard liberty from statist oppressors. And he saw communism for what it was: an evil, godless regime that claims to empower the many but instead exalts the few at the cost of great suffering and degradation. President Reagan reoriented American economic policy away from the high-tax, high-spending fiasco of previous administrations and toward a cleaner, simpler, fairer approach. He cut taxes, worked to slash Washington bureaucracy, and all the while told the American people that it was them, not the government, that was the true engine of economic growth.   And the results spoke for themselves. Inflation fell from 13.5 percent in 1980 to 3.2 percent in 1983. By 1986, four years after the Reagan tax cuts passed, economic growth had increased by 18 percent. And when President Reagan left office in 1988, more than 18 million new jobs had been created.   In foreign policy, President Reagan stood up to communism and revealed it to be a fundamentally failed and false ideology. He rebuilt American power and might at a rate the Soviets simply could not match. Pilloried as a warmonger by holier-than-thou leftists, he showed that peace through strength is not an oxymoron, but rather a winning strategy against hollow strongmen. America’s free market economy, which Reagan helped unleash, proved far stronger than Soviet Russia’s top-down command economy, which was neither nimble nor robust enough to keep pace with Reagan’s reforms. And so, while America flourished, communism collapsed.   Through these and other successes, Ronald Reagan showed Americans that conservatism works. He showed Americans that the answer to every problem isn’t more government. To the contrary, he showed that the answer is frequently less government. Unencumbered by sclerotic and often misguided government mandates, the American spirit and American work ethic can produce untold prosperity and growth.   And what’s true of America is no less true of any place else on earth. There is nothing uniquely American about the drive to succeed, or to innovate, or to invent. Business acumen is not limited to one population or one culture. All people have within them the desire to better themselves and to provide a more fulfilling life for their posterity.   And so, the lessons of Ronald Reagan’s presidency are universal. Reducing unnecessary central power emboldens private initiative. The people, left to their own devices, will act in ways more likely to spur economic growth than will overstuffed government bureaucrats told to come up with some grand design. And efforts to constrain the human spirit, though they may appear to succeed for a time, will always be doomed to failure, because the human spirit is irrepressible and seeks always for freedom and opportunity.   It’s noteworthy that when President Reagan addressed this very body nearly three decades ago, it was here that he announced the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, an initiative I was closely involved with in Congress.   Democracy, and faith in the human spirit, is more relevant today than ever before. In the Middle East, the protection of religious minorities and the promotion of democracy is a matter of particular urgency. As we progress in the military fight against ISIS, the final blow to its evil ideology will emerge as we help ensure the prosperity of local communities, the protection of individual rights, and the promotion of democratic principles. As President Reagan said, the only cure for what ails democracy is more democracy.   Now, I can’t share my memories of Reagan without also offering some thoughts on the current state of the Republican Party.   No doubt the vast majority of the coverage you all see in the news media on the Republican Party is negative. The narrative, which I’m sure you’ve all heard many times and probably internalized, is that the Republican Party is a dying party—a collection of old white men who, as President Obama once put it, cling to their guns and their religion, who are scared of change, and who will soon be dead, anyway.   Now, most of you are probably thinking I’m not exactly the best messenger to rebut that narrative.   In my defense, I’m pretty sure I have at least a few years left in me. And I can tell you that this narrative that the Republican Party is dying is not only false, but illogical.   Let’s reflect on this narrative for a moment. According to the narrative, “The Republican Party is dying. It will soon be dead.”   Curious, then, that the party now holds the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. More curious still that the party holds two-thirds of state governor’s offices and fifty-six percent of state legislature seats. The Republican Party has complete control of the state government—meaning it holds the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature—in twenty-six states, a majority.   The Democratic Party? Following elections earlier this month, it will have complete control in eight. That’s not a joke.   So you have twenty-six states with complete Republican control, and only eight with complete Democratic control. That’s better than a three-to-one ratio. You tell me which party is dying. Indeed, this notion that the Republican Party is dying is based on two fallacies. First, that political alignment is static. Second, that past results determine future performance.   Let’s take the first fallacy, that political alignment is static. You may have heard of an influential 2002 book called The Emerging Democratic Majority. This book, which was published early in George W. Bush’s presidency, examined demographic data and voting patterns and concluded that Democrats were on the cusp of an enduring majority.   Specifically, the authors noted that, first, the proportion of white Americans was due to decline over the coming years and the proportion of minority racial groups due to increase. Second, the authors observed that members of minority racial groups tend to be more Democratic than whites. In simpler terms, whites tend to vote Republican, minorities tend to vote Democratic, and there are likely to be proportionally fewer white voters and proportionally more minority voters in the future.   Fair enough. Indeed, the 2008 election of Barack Obama seemed to bear this thesis out. But there’s a problem with it. It doesn’t account for changes in individual partisan alignment. Many voters, perhaps most, tend to pick a party early on and stick with it. But not all do. Some swing back and forth. Others leave the party of their youth as they realize the other party better matches their values. That’s what happened to me. It’s what happened to Ronald Reagan, too. It happens to a lot of people. And here’s a dirty little secret: this change from one party to the other as people grow older—it usually favors the Republicans.   Winston Churchill is reputed to have said if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brain. There’s some truth to that, and I don’t say that just because that’s what happened to me.   When you look at polls across generations, you see that young people tend to hold more liberal views and older people more conservative ones. And this holds true across time. You see it in polls taken in 1970, in 1990, and in 2010. Given population turnover, that means there is a population of people—a sizeable population—that begin their voting life on the left side of the spectrum and gradually move to the right.   When you have some time, look up the backgrounds of prominent American conservatives. You’ll be shocked how many cut their teeth on the 1972 George McGovern campaign.   McGovern was probably the most liberal major-party nominee in American history. He lost in a landslide, to Richard Nixon of all people, because his views were so far out of the mainstream. But there sure are a lot of prominent conservatives who were McGovernites back in the day. And so the fallacy of The Emerging Democratic Majority was that voting patterns circa 2002 wouldn’t change. College-educated whites would vote Republican, blue-collar whites would remain marginally Democratic, and minorities would remain overwhelmingly Democratic. Donald Trump’s election blew that premise out of the water. In the 2016 election, college-educated whites—long the backbone of the Republican Party—voted for Hillary Clinton. Blue-collar whites, meanwhile, voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. And minority voters gave their support to Hillary Clinton, albeit in lower numbers than for Barack Obama. Between 2002 and 2016, there was a seismic shift in the blue-collar vote. Long a core Democratic constituency, over the course of fourteen years, this enormous bloc of voters switched sides. The demographic changes predicted in 2002 may have borne out, but the voting patterns did not.   The simple fact of the matter is that politics is a dynamic business. Party coalitions are constantly changing. The American South for a hundred years was the base of the Democratic Party. Now it’s solidly Republican. The Republican Party was born in the Northeast. For decades Vermont was the most Republican state in the nation. Now the Democratic Party is ascendant in the Northeast and Vermont is a Democratic bastion.   Though it does have a Republican governor. Not all hope is lost!   The purpose of a political party is to win. If a party goes long enough in a dry spell, it will adapt to better match the electorate. That’s why there are no permanent majorities in politics, and why the claim that one party is destined for eternal success while the other is doomed to permanent defeat is foolishness.   Yes, older people in America tend to be more Republican right now and younger people more Democratic. But that’s often been the case in my country’s history, and it hasn’t doomed the Republican Party yet. Yes, white voters tend to be more Republican right now and minority voters more Democratic. But that may not always be the case. And more importantly, even if present alignments remain relatively stable demographically speaking, shifts in voting patterns among subgroups—even minor shifts—can make a world of difference.   Remember the blue-collar vote, which I mentioned earlier. Donald Trump’s genius—I recognize that’s not a word you often hear associated with him in the media, though in many things he is a genius—was his ability to tap into the blue-collar vote in a way that no Republican had since, well, Ronald Reagan.   According to one statistical analysis, eight-and-a-half million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 pulled the lever for Donald Trump. That contrasts with only two-and-a-half million Romney voters who switched to Clinton. And if you dig into the data, what you find is that a whole lot of those eight-and-a-half million Obama-Trump voters were blue-collar workers.   So don’t let the Democratic boosters in the media trick you into thinking present demographics mean the Republican Party is on the path to oblivion. As long as there are Republican candidates able to tap into voters previously aligned with the other party, the GOP will be just fine. And I have every confidence there will be plenty such candidates in the future. That’s what we politicians do: we work to win votes.   I’ve already gone on at some length here, so let me just briefly mention the second fallacy behind the claim that the Republican Party is dying, namely, that past results determine future performance.   Many who argue—or who argued prior to the 2016 election—that the Republican Party is doomed used Barack Obama’s election as their baseline. They assumed that because President Obama did however well with such-and-such groups, the next Democratic nominee would as well.   But every Democrat is not Barack Obama. President Obama was a singular political talent, a once-in-a-generation orator, if you ask me.   One thing the 2016 election revealed was that Hillary Clinton, for all her strengths—and I do think she has many—does not have President Obama’s natural political talents. She is a hard worker and a tough, dedicated advocate, but I think most of us would agree she does not have the ability to thrill a crowd the same way Barack Obama does.   And so the fact that President Obama had a certain level of success with certain voters did not mean Hillary Clinton was destined to have that same level of success. Look at Reagan. He won 49 states in 1984. That didn’t portend a permanent Republican majority any more than President Obama’s 2012 election foreshadowed a permanent Democratic one.   It’s easy to get caught up in the moment and to think that what’s true now in politics will always be true in the future. But those of us with longer experience know that what’s true now in politics is almost never true in the future. You’re lucky to predict what the political climate is going to be like a month from now, let alone a year, or a decade. What would have happened if two-and-a-half years ago I had stood here and told you the next President of the United States would be Donald Trump? You would have laughed me out of the room.   To succeed in politics, you always need to have the future in mind. It can’t just be about the present. You need to have a vision: What will people need in the future? What will they want? How can I speak to their future aspirations?   Ronald Reagan understood this better than anyone. When he spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, he hearkened back to America’s Founding and the words of our Pilgrim forebears. But he also touched on our hopes for the future. Yes, America has been a shining city on a hill to prior generations, a proponent of democracy and freedom, however imperfect our application of those principles may have been. But America also aspires to be that shining city on a hill. Americans want our country to lead. They want to set an example of liberty and equality. Ronald Reagan tapped into these innate yearnings within the American character, and in so doing, led his country back to confidence and prosperity.   I, for one, have great confidence in the future of my country and the future of the Republican Party. Right now is a rather interesting time in American politics. Much of what we thought we knew now seems upside-down.   But the only constant in politics is change. The Republican Party will continue to adapt, as will the Democratic Party. And the leaders who will win the future will be those who are able to tap into the American spirit and speak to our future aspirations.   That’s what Ronald Reagan did. That’s what our greatest leaders have always done. And that, in my view, is the measure of a successful president.   Thank you again for your kind invitation.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=4515C9A5-380D-428B-9B67-82EAF28ADD8F,"In London Visit, Hatch Meets with Prime Minister Theresa May, MI5, Religious Leaders",2017-11-21,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"LONDON—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, traveled to London this week to meet with top officials to discuss a number of important issues, including national security, trade, religious liberty, and our critical “special relationship” with the United Kingdom. He also delivered an address before the Oxford Student Union on “Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Vision.” (full video of Senator Hatch’s speech at the Oxford Union will be available later, the text can be found here.) Senator Hatch was invited to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May and National Security Advisor Mark Sedwill to discuss national security, trade, and international human rights, among other things. Senator Hatch also met with MI5 Director General Andrew Parker to discuss homeland security issues, primarily combatting terror and homegrown radicalization. MI5 is the UK’s domestic counterintelligence and security agency. Senator Hatch likewise met with the Rt. Revd. Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark to discuss religious liberty, particularly the situation of religious minorities in the Middle East. Bishop Christopher has visited Iraq and Syria in recent years and is an authority on the issue of protecting religious minorities. Video of Senator Hatch’s address to the Oxford Union will be made available at a later time, but the text can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=1A0302D5-43A9-44EE-82B4-26355A80FD8B,Hatch Statement on DOJ lawsuit to block AT&T-Time Warner Merger,2017-11-20,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement following the announcement that the Department of Justice would be filing a lawsuit to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger: Today brings momentous news in the antitrust space. As I have stressed previously on the floor of the Senate, antitrust law is poised to take center stage in the years to come, and officials of both parties need to start paying attention. I am not prepared to comment, in any detail, on the merits of this case. Only those involved are familiar with the full record; everyone else is set to learn a lot more in the days and weeks to come.   What I can unequivocally say, however, is that I am proud of Makan Delrahim. Throughout an unnecessarily protracted confirmation debate, there were voices suggesting he wasn’t disinterested enough, independent enough, or open-minded enough, to make the tough calls that the Antitrust Division requires. Today, those in doubt learned otherwise.   I plan to take a close look at the facts and arguments made in this suit. In the meantime, allow me to reiterate that sound and vigorous antitrust enforcement is not merely another form of government overreach. It is, rather, our last and best hope for staving off the kind of command-and-control regulation antithetical to the free enterprise system. With sound antitrust enforcement, the market – rather than the government bureaucrat – disciplines our businesses into offering lower prices, greater quality, and enhanced innovation.   Now is the time to get serious about antitrust, and to get serious about getting it right. We don’t have the room – and with the rate of change these days, we don’t have the time – for the same-old partisan name-calling and economic sophistry. I look forward to the debate this suit is sure to spur.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=01693298-08A5-4DA9-9BC8-BC1F610DE5E7,NRA and Law Enforcement Groups Support Hatch Efforts to Protect Legal Gun Ownership by Fixing Background Check System,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY –This week Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT, the senior Republican in the United States Senate, co-sponsored the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, legislation addressing critical holes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. While the legislation does not expand background checks or infringe on any law-abiding American’s legal right to own firearms, it works to prevent criminals like Devin Patrick Kelley, the shooter in the recent Sutherland Springs Tragedy, from taking advantage of holes in the background check system to obtain firearms. The Fix NICS Act has received endorsements from the National Rifle Association of America, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Sheriffs Association. NRA: “We applaud this effort to ensure that the records of prohibited individuals are entered into NICS, while providing a relief valve for those who are wrongly included in the system.” (Executive Director Chris Cox, National Rifle Association of America, 11/16/17) National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: “The Fix NICS Act is a demonstration of Congressional unity, bringing together not only legislators from both sides of the aisle but also taking meaningful action supported by a diverse cross-section of individuals and organizations.” (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17) Fraternal Order of Police: “Tragically, recent events have showed us that Federal agencies and State governments have too often failed to upload all relevant information to the NICS, allowing the illegal sale of a firearm.  This bill will address this issue in a comprehensive way.” (Fraternal Order of Police, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17) National Domestic Violence Hotline: “This bill will help save the lives of victims of domestic violence and the communities in which they live and worship, by ensuring that domestic violence records are entered properly and consistently into the background check system.” (CEO Katie Ray Jones, National Domestic Violence Hotline, 11/16/17) National Shooting Sports Foundation: “This legislation will fix NICS so that background checks are accurate and reliable.” (National Shooting Sports Foundation, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/15/17) National Network to End Domestic Violence: “Your bipartisan bill would help to avert future tragedies… This legislation will save lives by keeping firearms out of the hands of people with a history of domestic abuse.” National Network to End Domestic Violence, Letter to Sen. Cornyn, 11/16/17) National Sheriff’s Association: “This legislation is a bold step to ensure federal laws are adhered to and upheld.” (Jonathan Thompson, National Sheriffs Association, 11/17/2017)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=41F4AC2E-F2D6-48E1-8A64-70AB4F792673,Hatch Statement on the New US Marshal for the District of Utah Nominee,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Dr. Matthew Harris to serve as the US Marshal for the District of Utah. “With the nomination of Dr. Matthew Harris to serve as the next US Marshal for the District of Utah, our state has reason to celebrate,” Hatch said. “Dr. Harris is a superbly qualified nominee with nearly two decades of federal law enforcement experience. Not only does he have a proven record as an investigator; he has also distinguished himself as a senior manager in three different executive agencies. As a US Marshal, Dr. Harris will apply the lessons learned over a lifetime in law enforcement to prosecute dangerous criminals and keep our communities safe.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/issue-in-focus?ContentRecord_id=A74240F7-5A33-4DEC-86CE-46CCC2125FBE,The USA Liberty Act,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was signed into law in 1978 to curtail the relatively unbridled surveillance power the executive had possessed since President Franklin Roosevelt. The intent of the act was to limit the government’s ability to spy on Americans abroad and all people at home. Despite their good intentions, the authors of the bill included one provision that accomplished just the opposite. Section 702 of FISA has allowed the government to collect vast amounts of information from the Internet and other technological platforms, effectively undermining the law’s original intent of protecting civil liberties. Government agencies have exploited this provision to expand their spying powers. The tech trails and geotracking used by government agencies today would have seemed like the stuff of science fiction in 1978, while PRISM would have seemed like something out of 1984. We’ve made progress in rolling back some of these abuses—for example, by passing the USA Freedom Act in 2015—but we still have a way to go. That is why I am pleased that the USA Liberty Act passed out of the House Judiciary Committee last week. The USA Liberty Act would create a new framework of protections and transparency requirements to ensure that the government uses its surveillance powers without abusing citizens’ constitutional rights to privacy and due process. This bill would define more strictly what information can and cannot be collected by the government, whether incidentally or intentionally. It would end the collection of information that is bundled incidentally with more important information about a person or topic of interest. It also would implement higher accountability thresholds for heads of government agencies responsible for protecting civil liberties, whistleblower protections for federal employees and contractors, and privacy and due process safeguards for American citizens. Today, Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) and I introduced a companion bill to the USA Liberty Act that includes all these protections. Our Senate bill also includes an amendment originally introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would close a “back-door” surveillance loophole by requiring domestic agencies such as the FBI to obtain a warrant before accessing any information about American citizens collected under Section 702. Fifty years after FISA’s passage, we are still reconciling the need for public safety with constitutionally protected rights to privacy and due process. The USA Liberty Act would send a clear bipartisan message that our government must protect Americans’ safety and constitutional rights—not one or the other.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=84605D3E-55FE-466B-B284-EF49B3C34060,"November 17, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Wayne",2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Torrey When: Friday November 17th, 2017 @ 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Where: Torrey DUP Building, 49 E Main Street, Torrey, UT 84775",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/the-chairman-s-note?ContentRecord_id=3095F799-7550-4FAA-B361-AE71326B9FFE,A Good Start for Utah Families,2017-11-17,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Things are looking up for Utah families. This Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee released a revised version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This version included two key changes that make the bill much better for Utah families. First, the revised bill expanded the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 under current law to $2,000. This increase solved a potentially huge problem for working Utah families in tax reform. The original tax bill only increased the CTC to $1,650. It also eliminating the personal exemption, a tax provision that benefits many working families. This could have meant a tax hike for many Utah families, but by increasing the CTC to $2,000 the new bill avoided that mistake. According to the Tax Foundation, a family of four making $85,000 per year would get a $1,554 tax cut under the new Senate bill. And thanks to economic growth, the average middle-income Utah family would eventually see an extra $2,969 in after-tax income every year. The revised Senate bill also would repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, a provision that the Supreme Court ruled was a tax in 2012. By eliminating this tax penalty, millions of Americans families will no longer be punished for not purchasing expensive health insurance policies they do not want. Democrats claim that repealing the individual mandate would kick 13 million Americans off of their health insurance policies. But that claim could not be further from the truth, as a Washington Post fact check makes clear. It is true that five million Americans will choose not to enroll in Medicaid when they are not forced to do so by a government mandate. It also is true that an additional two million Americans will choose to decline employer-sponsored health care in return for higher wages. But these seven million people are all choosing to forego health care of their own accord. Nobody is depriving them of anything. If the individual mandate is repealed, another 5 million people who currently buy health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges will discontinue those policies. But many of those people would have gotten subsidies to cover the cost of Obamacare premiums. And those who do not qualify for premiums can buy unregulated health-care plans that better fit their needs. The corporate tax cut in the original version of the bill will be more good news for working families. Yes, some of that tax cut will go to the stockholders of corporate entities—but a lot of that money will go instead to new jobs and higher wages. Economists disagree on the precise breakdown, but the consensus is that lost wages make up between one-quarter and one-half of corporate tax revenue. According to the Tax Foundation, the Senate tax plan would lead to a 3.7 percent increase in economic growth, 925,000 more jobs, and 4.4% higher after-tax income. As good as this bill is— and it is good—it is not perfect. Many Utah families pay far more in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. As written, the current Senate bill would provide these families little relief. There is a solution to this shortcoming. If we make the Child Tax Credit refundable up to the amount that families pay in payroll taxes, then the credit would be far more beneficial to those families that most need extra cash in their pockets. The bill as written also reduces federal revenues by almost $1.5 trillion. By itself, this is not a problem: The federal government shouldn’t be taking so much of our money! But if this tax cut is not followed by significant spending cuts, it will hand the next generation an unacceptable debt burden My colleagues have done a fantastic job on tax reform so far. If we can just make the Child Tax Credit refundable against payroll taxes—and if we can then pledge to address our nation’s spending addiction—it will be a huge win for Utah families.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=736,Rep. Love Applauds Passage of 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act',2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C. -- ""My vote in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) is a vote for working Utahns who live in the 4th District.  This is one of the rare cases where I can say Washington is truly working for people.  The process is long and complex, but the hard work will be worth it for our 4th district neighbors who seek the American Dream.  Our current tax code is gargantuan, complex, riddled with loopholes for lobbyists and kills American job creation.   We’re putting an end to that.  We are simplifying the tax code, giving small business and individuals relief while keeping important elements like deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest and expanding the child tax credit.  Most importantly, we are lowering the rates so that Utahns will truly feel the benefit of keeping more of their money.  In spite of the demagoguery from those who oppose the bill, this isn’t about Republicans or Democrats winning, it’s about the American people winning."" ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act,Bishop Votes for “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON The US House of Representatives has voted to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement after his vote for the bill: Utahns deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. Each year, Utahns and other Americans spend billions of dollars complying with our needlessly complicated tax code. I voted for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act because it will save Utahns thousands of dollars each year. Furthermore, the bill contains numerous provisions that bring federal tax policy more in line with Utah values. BACKGROUND: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is estimated to raise the after-tax income of Utah families by $2,969. 71,033 taxpayers in Utahs 1st District claim the child tax credit. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increases the child tax credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600. CLICK HERE for more on the impact of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act on Utahs 1st District.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/tax-reform-passes-house,Tax Reform Passes House,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Congressman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) released the following statement after voting in favor of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. “For the first time in decades we are able to provide the American people with a dramatic new tax code that is simple and fair. Utahans deserve more jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks.” “An average family of four living in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District will receive a $1,445 tax cut. The majority are also going to be able to complete their taxes on a postcard sized tax form. The standard deduction is going to increase significantly, keeping more money in your pocket. The child tax credit will increase, providing you with more support for your family. Tax benefits are being preserved, helping you afford some of life’s most important investments. All while you are enjoying the benefits of a strong and growing American economy.” “This new tax code will change lives, energize our country, and get our economy thriving again. Once tax reform passes in the Senate, you are going to see a remarkable difference.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=241A4285-FAC6-4AA5-BF48-40E845744198,Finance Committee Passes Hatchs Historic Tax Proposal,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"“After months of hard work and nearly a week of robust deliberation on the merits of this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee acted tonight to advance the most comprehensive tax reform bill in a generation. This is a historic moment and one we should all be proud of.” WASHINGTON – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) released the following statement after advancing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act after a near week-long markup in the Senate Finance Committee: “From the outset of this process, we sought to craft a strong pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family tax overhaul that will move America forward and modernize our nation’s tax system to meet the challenges and opportunities of today. After months of hard work and nearly a week of robust deliberation on the merits of this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee acted tonight to advance the most comprehensive tax reform bill in a generation. This is a historic moment and one we should all be proud of. Video: Hatch Final Statement + Final Vote “By nearly doubling the standard deduction, lowering tax rates, and doubling the child tax credit, we have made good on our promise to deliver a bill that will improve the lives of average Americans who have been hit by nearly a decade of sluggish economic growth. Bringing our outdated tax structure into the 21st century will help level the playing field for businesses – both small and large – and ensure we can keep more jobs and more investment here at home. “This is an initiative that focuses on building a better economy for American workers and a better future for generations to come. With this bill, we act to strengthen the middle class, reward hard-working taxpayers, and get our economy back on track. While we’ve cleared a major hurdle tonight, there is still much work to be done and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this across the finish line.” In an exchange with another Senator, Hatch passionately rejected Democrats Talking Points that his tax proposal is solely intended to benefit the wealthy Leader McConnell praised Hatch and the Finance Committee “For the millions of hard-working Americans who need more money in their pockets and the chance of a better future, help is on the way.  Building off of years of work, dozens of hearings and bipartisan proposals, the Senate Finance Committee has reported a bill that will bring lasting relief to middle-class families, small businesses and American workers.  The committee, under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, considered hundreds of amendments, heard arguments from all sides and debated in an open and transparent manner.  I commend my colleagues and the legislation they put forward. “When the Senate returns after Thanksgiving, I will bring this must-pass legislation to the floor for further debate and open consideration.  I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join us in supporting this legislation, because there is universal agreement that a tax overhaul, and taking more money out of Washington’s pocket and putting more in the pockets of American families, is an economic imperative for our nation.  It’s needed to ensure our jobs and businesses aren’t shipped overseas, that families have more to spend on their children, and that our future is one of prosperity.” To read Chairman Hatch’s closing statement, click here. To view a full copy of the chairman’s modified mark, click here. A score of the modified mark may be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=9BA84DD8-EF37-4CEB-9507-CFA444AF5A01,"Hatch, Feinstein, Toomey Introduce Bill to Aid Child Pornography Victims",2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)—the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee— alongside Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), introduced the bipartisan Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act, named for the victims in some of the world’s most widely circulated child pornography series. This crucial legislation improves the process for seeking restitution from child pornography defendants. The bill also offers victims a monetary assistance alternative from the Crime Victim Fund, requires the appointment of a guardian to act on behalf of the victim in court, and allows victims access to the defendants’ images depicting them.  “Child pornography is different than other crimes in the way it continuously hurts victims,” Hatch said. “Victims of this insidious crime deserve assistance tailored to how often the offense imposes harm, especially when images are trafficked on the internet. The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Act will provide meaningful assistance for victims to help them recover and reclaim their lives.” “The sexual abuse and exploitation of children is one of the most heinous crimes and child-pornography victims are affected for the rest of their lives,” Feinstein said. “Our bill makes it easier for these victims to secure restitution from those that produce and traffic child pornography.” “Child pornography is a heinous crime with lifelong effects for its victims,” Toomey said. “Current federal law does not do enough to enable victims to recover restitution from criminals who produce and traffic child pornography. This bipartisan bill responds to these shortcomings by helping victims of child pornography obtain much needed restitution for the terrible harms that they have suffered.” Statements of Support The bill is named after victims depicted in some of the most widely circulated child pornography series in the world.  Amy wrote: “Thank you Senator Hatch for not giving up. There are lots of important things going on in our country right now and I know that a bunch of abused kids aren’t always at the top of the list. But you haven’t given up and neither have we.” Vicky and her husband wrote: “This bill is an important and needed step in the process of healing and making those who have harmed so many accountable for the damage done. We are thankful for the efforts of all who have brought this to this point and urge Congress to go the last mile to make this happen.”   Andy, a Utah resident, wrote: “I’m lucky, and so is Vicky and Amy and so many other mostly silent victims out there, to have you on our side and everyone else in the Senate. Just knowing that so many important people think that we matter, that the terrible things that happened to us as kids are being considered all the way up in the Congress of the United States….If we can all agree on something, it’s that victims deserve justice. Thank you for helping us get it.” Meg Garvin, National Crime Victims Law Institute, Executive Director: “The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2017 is…critical to ensuring that victims do not carry the financial burden of their own victimization.” Background The Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act includes the following provisions: A more relevant and predictable definition of “full amount of a victim’s losses,” including projected future and aggregate harm by all those whose activities contributed to harming the same victim. Restitution  For child pornography production crimes, victims receive full amount of their total losses. For child pornography trafficking (distribution and possession) crimes, victims receive from each defendant between a minimum of $3,000 and one percent of their total losses. Compensation Child pornography production victims may instead receive a single payment of $35,000 from a Child Pornography Victims Reserve (CPVR) within the federal Crime Victims Fund (CVF). Judges must appoint a guardian ad litem advocate for victims of child pornography production and their fees are capped at 10 percent of the victim’s compensation. Perpetrators will be fined up to $17,000 for possession, up to $35,000 for distribution, and up to $50,000 for production crimes. The CPVR will be capped at $10 million, and funds may be transferred from the CVF (current balance is more than nine billion dollars) if the assessments are insufficient. Child pornography victims will have the same access to the images depicting them as defendants already have; this is important for victim identification, forensic analysis, and treatment. Department of Justice must report to Congress within 24 months on implementation. Groups endorsing this legislation include the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, the National Center for Victims of Crime, National Crime Victims Bar Association, National Crime Victims Law institute, Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic, CHILD USA, Utah Coalition against Pornography, Children’s Justice Fund, Utah Coalition against Sexual Assault, Thorn, and DV LEAP. Cosponsors of this bill include Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) along with Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=BD174A6D-CF7B-4883-91CC-1E13A3E74056,RELEASE: Hatch Co-Sponsors Bipartisan Fix to Background Check System,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"“This is a commonsense solution that closes a hole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons, fugitives, drug addicts, persons with serious mental illness, and other prohibited persons” WASHINGTON – Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior Republican in the United States Senate, joined a bipartisan group of Senators in supporting legislation proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to make important fixes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. “I’m pleased to cosponsor Senator Cornyn’s bipartisan Fix NICS Act,” Hatch said. “This is a commonsense solution that closes a hole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons, fugitives, drug addicts, persons with serious mental illness, and other prohibited persons. Our proposal will help prevent future tragedies by facilitating better information-sharing to prevent the sale of arms to those who would do us harm.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which supports the bill, added, “This legislation will provide states with the necessary resources to promptly and efficiently provide disqualifying records to NICS on those who are prohibited under current law from possessing firearms. Federally licensed firearms retailers rely upon the NICS to prevent the sale of firearms to prohibited persons.  This legislation will fix NICS so that background checks are accurate and reliable.”    The text of the bill can be found here.   Summary of the bill: Requires federal agencies and states to create NICS implementation plans focused on uploading information to the background check system showing that a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms under current law—including measures to verify the accuracy of records. Holds federal agencies accountable if they fail to upload relevant records to the background check system through public reporting and prohibiting bonus pay for political appointees.   Rewards states that comply with their NICS implementation plans through federal grant preferences and incentives, while also increasing accountability through public reporting for those who do not comply with their plans. Reauthorizes and improves important law enforcement programs to help state governments share relevant criminal record information with NICS. Creates a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing firearms under current law. Provides important technical assistance to federal agencies and states that are working to comply with NICS record-sharing requirements.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=E7F111A4-93AF-458A-815D-1693360D78A0,Hatch Opens 4th Day of Tax Reform Hearings with Call for Civility,2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the fourth day of consideration for his tax reform proposal—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—by asking members to temper outbursts to permit a civil debate. Hatch also reiterated the importance of lowering the corporate tax rate to make the United States more competitive. He also emphasized the need to repeal the healthcare individual mandate, which disproportionately burdens low- and middle-income families in Utah.   [Video via YouTube] As I've said, I don't begrudge anyone for holding a passionate viewpoint on any issue, and I don't doubt my various colleagues' sincerity. But for the committee to operate, we need to be respectful and allow the debate to unfold in an orderly fashion. Members are, of course, free to disagree about any issue, but no one should interrupt another member or shut down the other side or impugn their colleague's motives. In my opinion, we saw quite a bit of that and some of it was pretty inflammatory. As for myself, I can take it. I can guarantee that in my 40-plus years in the Senate, I've been called worse names. For the good of the committee, I want to encourage my colleagues to dial back the rhetoric and turn down the volume of some of our arguments.  Senator Hatch outlined how his tax reform proposal “will help businesses of all sizes,” citing the bill’s support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other small business organizations. Hatch also noted that members “on both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years.” [Video via YouTube] Continuing the conversation from the previous day, Hatch reiterated that nothing in his tax proposal takes away anyone’s health insurance. The JCT Chief of Staff, Tom Barthold, affirmed that the “modified mark leaves in place the existing premium subsidy credit structure” and that the analysis “includes a lot of taxpayer behavior.” [Video via YouTube]  Let's be clear: Anyone who says we're hiking taxes on low-income families is misstating the facts. Anyone who says people will see their taxes go up because we're taking away their health insurance is also misstating the facts. The full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Today, we will continue our consideration of the chairman’s mark, as modified, for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Having walked through both the mark and modification, with extensive questioning and discussion, we began consideration of amendments last night.  Admittedly, things were a little chaotic at the outset and I know some tensions ran high.  We’re going to improve the process and communication today and, hopefully, make things move a little more smoothly.     With that issue addressed, I’d like to say a few words about the tone of our discussion this week, because I think it has been a problem.   As I’ve said, I don’t begrudge anyone for holding a passionate viewpoint on any issue.  And, I don’t doubt my colleagues’ sincerity in any views they express or any votes they take.  But, for the committee to operate, we need to be respectful and allow the debate to unfold in an orderly fashion.  Members are, of course, free to disagree about any issue.  But no one should interrupt another member, shout down the other side, or impugn their colleague’s motives on substantive or procedural disagreements.   We saw quite a bit of that yesterday, and some of it was pretty inflammatory.   As for myself, I can take it – I can guarantee that, in my 40 years in the Senate, I’ve been called worse names than anyone on this committee would come up with.  But, for the good of the committee, I want to urge my colleagues to dial back the rhetoric and turn down the volume of some of our arguments.   This is the last time I will raise issues about process for the duration of this markup, because, in my view, if we’re going to have a lively debate, it should be about policy.  So let’s talk about policy differences for a moment.  Let me reiterate what our bill does.  Our bill gives tax relief to individuals and families across the board, with the middle class getting the largest benefit, relative to their income.  We provide this relief primarily by cutting rates and expanding credits for parents and families.    Our bill will also help businesses of all sizes.  Our pass-through solution is simple and effective, which is why the bill is supported by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and most other small business organizations.   The business section of the mark also includes, among other things, a significant reduction in corporate rates.  I know my colleagues have characterized this in a number of ways.  But, this is not some radical, right-wing approach.   As I’ve noted, members of this committee on both sides have supported the proposition of lowering corporate rates for years now.  The ranking member actually introduced legislation that would have reduced the rate to 24 percent.  Yet, now it appears that the notion that we’d even consider moving down from the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is something totally abhorrent to Democrats.  I’ve yet to hear an explanation from anyone on the other side as to why they’ve changed their minds and are now characterizing our efforts to modernize America’s business tax system as a “corporate giveaway.”  That would be interesting to hear.  As we debated at length yesterday, the mark will also zero out the punitive individual mandate tax established under Obamacare.  Despite claims to the contrary, we contend that this is a pro-family, pro-middle class, and pro-growth proposition.  It will undo one of the most regressive taxes in the tax code, and allow us to provide additional tax relief to middle-class families.  By now, I’m sure most of my colleagues are aware of the most recent developments with JCT’s updated distributional analysis.  I expect our friends on the other side will try to make some hay out of the new table this morning, and that’s their right.  But, I want to provide some context before that begins.  We developed a modification to the chairman’s mark that included additional tax relief for families throughout the middle class.  Once again, it expanded further the child tax credit, made it more refundable, and provided it to a greater number of families with children.  We also adjusted the rates downward for middle class families.  And, of course, we relieved those middle and lower income families of the burdens imposed by the individual mandate tax.   With those changes in place, JCT noted a projected uptick in taxes owed by those in some lower income brackets.  Obviously, we have no intention of raising taxes on these families.  Every Republican on this committee has been committed to providing tax cuts to every income cohort.   So, here’s the rub, JCT’s analysis doesn’t show that we’re raising taxes on lower income Americans.  We’re seeing some taxes go up in the distributional analysis because of a scoring assumption, not because of tax rates or even tax policy.  Congressional scorekeepers have assumed that, if the individual mandate were to be repealed, a segment of people will opt voluntarily to not get health insurance.  The assumption extends even to those who currently get their insurance for free under Medicaid.   So, JCT began with an assumption that some people in the lower income brackets will opt to not purchase health insurance and thus not take advantage of available tax credit subsidies.  Without those credits, they see an overall uptick in their tax liability.  I don’t fault JCT for this.  They have to make assumptions in order to make credible projections.  However, in the world that exists outside of those assumptions, people will be making their own choices.  In fact, our bill will give them additional freedom to do so.  Nothing in our mark will impact the availability of premium subsidy credits.  Nothing in the mark will direct or suggest to taxpayers that they should not take advantage of the credits. This is the result of an assumption about economic behavior that is 100 percent voluntary.  I believe JCT has additional data that will demonstrate that, but for the behavioral assumptions that accompany the repeal of the individual mandate tax, our mark provides significant relief to all low- and middle-class income brackets.   I know that we’re going to hear arguments to the contrary this morning, but let’s be clear: Anyone who says that we’re hiking taxes on low-income families is misstating the facts.  Anyone who says people will see their taxes go up because we’re taking away their health insurance is also misstating the facts.  To view a full copy of the chairman’s modified mark, click here. A score of the modified mark may be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=1AD98360-8354-4B93-AA36-A3891FEAEAA9,"November 16, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Rich County",2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Woodruff When: Thursday November 16th, 2017 @ 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM Where: Woodruff Town Hall, 195 S. Main Street, Woodruff, UT 84086",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=38B2AFA3-48DE-46D7-8712-DCC34FB2439D,"November 16, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Morgan County",2017-11-16,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Mountain Green When: Thursday November 16th, 2017 @ 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM Where: Mountain Green Fire Department, 4565 W Old Highway Road, Mountain Green, UT 84050",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=735,On the National Discussion Regarding Roy Moore,2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"""Sexual harassment and inappropriate and unwanted sexual behavior with anyone – especially underage youth – is unacceptable. Period. We should fiercely oppose sexual predators, especially those that seek or hold the public’s esteem and trust. Whether it is a candidate for U.S.Senate, an actor, a movie producer, or anyone with authority over others, I condemn this behavior in the strongest terms.""",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=15A609DF-7B10-4667-9395-95178EF5C3A9,Hatch Statement on Richard Cordray Resigning from CFPB,2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding Richard Cordray’s decision to step down as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). “For some time, the CFPB has been a problem,” Hatch said. “Therefore, it’s high time that changes be made. With a leadership structure of dubious constitutionality, jurisdiction ill-defined but expansively seized, and a policy orientation that sews more chaos than settles expectations, it’s fitting that Mr. Cordray has decided to step down. We thank him for his service, but look confidently to the President to make the right choice in a replacement. I stand at the ready to assist in the legislative efforts which may well accompany new leadership at the Agency.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=2C2FBD1D-4C40-4FF4-AE79-A2EE10A353D4,Hatch Makes Case for Including Individual Mandate Repeal in Tax Reform Plan,2017-11-15,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the third day of consideration for his tax reform proposal—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—by outlining updates to the chairman’s mark. Those updates include effectively repealing the individual mandate tax and increasing the child tax credit, among other provisions. Hatch explained how zeroing out the harsh tax burden of the individual mandate would not only provide tax relief for low- and middle-income Americans, but also save the US government $318 billion over ten years to use for further tax cuts. [Video via YouTube] The individual mandate isn’t just any tax, it’s a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers.  According to the IRS, roughly 80 percent of Americans who paid the individual mandate tax in 2015 made less than $50,000 a year. Zeroing out the mandate will raise $318 billion over 10 years, money we use in our mark to actually lower taxes for the middle class.    Also, let’s keep in mind that the mandate has been a pretty ineffective tool.  It hasn’t prevented premiums from skyrocketing, nor has it kept insurers from leaving markets. So, in the end, keeping the individual mandate tax in place means retaining the status quo, which isn’t working all too well.  Zeroing it out means we have a chance to provide greater tax relief to middle-class families, through both reduced penalties and lower overall rates.  The full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Today we will continue our consideration of the chairman’s mark for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Last night, as promised, we delivered to members a modification that we will incorporate into the mark this morning.  After that, we will walk through the modification, and members will get an opportunity to discuss and ask questions about the modification.  Once that process is complete, the mark, as modified, will be open for amendment.  Before we take these next steps, I’d like to make a few initial comments.  I want to thank my fellow committee members.  We were able to include a number of their amendments in the modification, and the mark will be better for it.  From the outset of this process, producing this legislation has been a group effort as I have been joined, and more than ably assisted, by the majority members of the committee.  I want thank them and their staffs for the hours, days, and weeks of hard work that have gone into this process.  By producing this modification, we’ve taken another big step forward for tax reform.  So, once again, thank you all for your hard work.  Now, let’s talk about some of the highlights in the modification.  I’ll note that, while we made some important alterations to the mark with this modification, these aren’t sea changes.  The core of the mark remains the same, meaning that complaints that yesterday’s walkthrough was a waste of time were misplaced.  One significant modification of the initial mark, which will benefit American families, is a greater expansion of the child tax credit, bringing it to $2000 per child and raising the income caps on the credit to allow more middle-class families to claim it. In addition, we will lower individual tax rates even further than in the original mark. The 22.5 percent rate will drop to 22 percent. The 25 percent bracket will drop to 24 percent. And, the 32.5 percent bracket will drop to 32 percent. While they may seem like small changes, these modest rate reductions – along with the additional expansion of the child tax credit – will let us channel even more tax relief to the middle class.   The modification also streamlines pass-through provisions, ensuring more small businesses – the engines of job creation for our economy – have greater access to the benefits.  We also raise the cap on the exemption for the W-2 wage limitation up to $500,000 for married couples, $250,000 for all others.  And, the modification expands the availability of the 17.4 percent deduction to service pass-through businesses for taxpayers with taxable income up to the new exemption level for the W-2 wage limitation.  On top of that, the modification improves the new international tax system we set out in the original mark and it ensures that the new 20 percent corporate tax rate will be permanent, even under the restrictions of the Byrd Rule.  We’ll talk more specifically about these measures as we walk through the modification.  Finally, the modification reduces the penalty under the so-called individual mandate tax down to zero.  Yesterday, this was the source of some consternation among our Democratic colleagues, who were apparently shocked to learn that Republicans oppose the individual mandate. I expect we’ll hear a lot about this today. We’ll hear claims that the inclusion of the individual mandate tax relief is some kind of process foul and that we’ve somehow expanded the scope of the markup by including it in the modification.  But, as was reiterated several times yesterday, the individual mandate is a tax.  The relevant statute is the Internal Revenue Code. The mandate is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.  We’re all familiar with the old saying: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.    I think we can all agree that the individual mandate is a tax.  After all, the Supreme Court would have nullified the mandate had they not reached that very conclusion.  So, the mandate really only exists today because it is a tax. In other words, we haven’t expanded anything by including individual mandate relief in the modification.  And, by no objective or reasonable estimation does the inclusion of mandate relief require the inclusion of every federal health program under the committee’s jurisdiction, as some of my friends argued yesterday.  Nor does it necessitate the presence of a Congressional Budget Office representative at the table, another demand we’ve heard in the last 18 hours. These demands are absurd.  The inclusion of a tax in a tax markup is not a sufficient justification for dramatically altering the way this committee operates.  We will stick to the tax code for this markup. That means the Joint Committee on Taxation will assist us with scorekeeping and will be at the table.  And, it means that, if my colleagues want to raise health care matters from the Internal Revenue Code, their amendments will be germane. Any amendments that go beyond the tax code will not be germane.   And, let me say this, if my colleagues believe we need to discuss our broader healthcare system and come up with solutions, I agree with them.  We absolutely should get to work on fixing what ails our federal health programs, but we’re not going to do so in the context of a tax markup.  By the way, the individual mandate isn’t just any tax, it’s a terribly regressive tax that imposes harsh burdens on low- and middle-income taxpayers.  According to the IRS, roughly 80 percent of Americans who paid the individual mandate tax in 2015 made less than $50,000 a year. Zeroing out the mandate will raise $318 billion over 10 years, money we use in our mark to actually lower taxes for the middle class.  Some colleagues have spent a great deal of time over the past couple days lamenting the possibility of tax hikes on the middle class.  Yet, today, I expect that we’ll hear these same colleagues argue that this tax – which, once again, overwhelmingly burdens low-to-middle income taxpayers – is an absolute necessity and, without it, our health care system will descend into oblivion.  Just to maintain some perspective, nothing in our bill would keep eligible individuals from receiving premium tax credits to pay for coverage.  Nothing would require those who are eligible for Medicaid to opt-out of receiving free health care.  And, of course, it wouldn’t tell those who are offered insurance from their employers to refuse it.  Also, let’s keep in mind that the mandate has been a pretty ineffective tool.  It hasn’t prevented premiums from skyrocketing, nor has it kept insurers from leaving markets.  So, in the end, keeping the individual mandate tax in place means retaining the status quo, which isn’t working all too well.  Zeroing it out means we have a chance to provide greater tax relief to middle-class families, through both reduced penalties and lower overall rates.  Ultimately, I’m more than willing to defend the decision to end the individual mandate taxes as well as the decision to include it in the modification.  It’s the right thing to do.  Far more people will be better off as a result.  I think the original chairman’s mark provided an exceptional path forward on tax reform, both in terms of middle-class tax relief and economic growth.  But, today, I have to say that the modification is a significant improvement.  It addresses problems noted by members on both sides and it will give Americans bigger paychecks, more opportunities, and a more prosperous economy.  I look forward to another lively discussion here today.  But before I turn to Senator Wyden for his opening remarks, I want to make clear that I plan to keep things orderly today.  I will make sure that members are recognized so we all get a chance to speak and ask questions, but I won’t abide the disorder and hostility we witnessed yesterday afternoon. I don’t begrudge anyone who expresses a passionate viewpoint, I just ask that members of the committee be respectful of one another.  To view a full copy of the chairman’s modified mark, click here. A score of the modified mark may be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-votes-pass-2018-defense-spending-bill,Bishop Votes to Pass 2018 Defense Spending Bill,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement after the House passed the Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018: This years NDAA finally recognizes that the 4 budget cuts and 2 manpower cuts to our military during the Obama years have harmed our military readiness. This bill, with a strong bipartisan vote, finally realizes this trend must be reversed. It provides the pathway to rebuild our military infrastructure. There are several provisions that will be of benefit to Utahs Hill Air Force Base and the civilian and military workforce that makes Hill so essential to our military success. BACKGROUND: As a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, a number of Rep. Bishops priorities were included in theHouses base bill and the Conference Report. Those priorities include the construction of aConsolidated Mission Control Center, aPump House, and aLife Support Facilityto support the mission of the F-35 and other aircraft at Utahs Hill Air Force Base.Also, efforts of Rep. Bishop will extend direct hiring authority for Hill AFB. This authority will allow Hill leaders to expedite the hiring process for civilian employees.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/final-version-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-passes-the-house,Final Version of the National Defense Authorization Act Passes the House,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the House of Representatives, with Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) serving as a conferee. The bill rebuilds our military through equipment modernization and improves readiness. It also reforms the way that the Pentagon does business and gives them the tools they need to make better, more responsible decisions. “After years of cuts, we are finally beginning to rebuild and provide more for our national defense,” Stewart said. “We have too many planes grounded, troops untrained, and ships out of service. The NDAA address essential readiness recovery concerns that will provide our armed forces with the resources they need to keep our homeland safe. With this bill becoming a law, we are putting Americans’ safety and security first.” ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=9D0AC1EA-9058-433E-869C-381B4213DB84,Why the appointment of federal judges is so important,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By Senator Orrin G. Hatch November 14, 2017 https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692690/Orrin-Hatch-Why-the-appointment-of-federal-judges-is-so-important.html  Two weeks ago, the Senate confirmed the nominations of four women and men to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Each holds the American Bar Association’s highest rating and is highly regarded throughout the legal profession. Each was supported by home-state senators, both Democrats and Republicans. Yet these superb nominees received between 38 and 41 votes against them. With nearly 140 life-tenured judicial positions vacant, and President Donald Trump steadily sending nominees to the Senate for review, it is worth taking a step back to remind ourselves why the appointment of federal judges is so important. Our system of government came together by design, not by accident. The Constitution’s preamble lists the purposes of that design, including justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, the general welfare and the “blessings of liberty.” Our system of government will produce these results only if it works as envisioned. America’s Founders designed the judiciary to be what they called the “weakest” and “least dangerous” branch. Judges are supposed to settle real legal disputes by impartially interpreting and applying the law. They are to take the law as it is, as the people and their elected representatives choose to fashion it. In this way, the American people stay in control of the government. Some presidents, however, have appointed political judges who twist the law into what they want it to be; some of these judges reach certain decisions to further an ideological agenda. It’s as if the political ends justify the judicial means. Political judges turn the constitutional design on its head by putting the government in control of the American people. This is one reason, for example, that the federal government has become so powerful at the expense of the states. Judges looked at the Constitution’s description of federal powers and turned them into blank checks. It’s also how religious freedom, central to the very identity of this country, has become so compromised. The First Amendment was drafted so that the prohibition on an “establishment of religion” would be narrow and the guarantee of the “free exercise of religion” would be broad. Judges have literally inverted the First Amendment by distorting the meaning of those words. Twice in the last few years, the Supreme Court came within one vote of choking off the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When I helped draft and pass RFRA in 1993, Congress was united that federal law should provide broad and generous protection to the exercise of religion by people of all faiths. Today, some political interests want a few judges to pick and choose whose exercise of religion matters and whose can be stifled. The conflict over judicial appointments, then, is really a conflict over judicial power. The confirmation process in the Senate, laid out in the Constitution, reflects a perennial consensus that America needs impartial judges. For more than two centuries, the Senate resorted to time-consuming roll-call votes for the confirmation of only 4 percent of federal judges, and conflicts over individual nominees were rare. But times have changed. Two-thirds of all judicial confirmations with more than 20 negative votes have occurred in the past two decades, and the Senate has been forced to take roll-call votes on more than 80 percent of nominees who had no opposition at all. Highly qualified nominees, like those approved last week, are now attacked for the very reason they should be approved: because they will be impartial judges who will leave the politics out of judicial decision-making. In this conflict over judicial appointments, everything that our system of government was designed to provide, including liberty itself, hangs in the balance. Should we fail, American jurisprudence may well descend into nothing more than another avenue for political disputes and conflict. But as shown last week, Republicans in the Senate are prepared to take a stand and assure that impartial, nonpolitical justice prevails.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=88BD49AB-A610-49E2-92FC-07D0FEAD0A0F,Hatch Sets the Record Straight on His Tax Reform Proposal,2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened the second day of consideration for his tax reform proposal—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—by clarifying issues that were raised about the bill after its initial introduction. Hatch debunked the myths that there would be massive tax cuts for the rich, massive tax increases for the middle class, and irregular processes to pass the bill. [Video via YouTube] A number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses. First is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.  That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee. The problem with that claim is that it’s just not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts – in terms of percentage of income – will go to middle-income earners. I understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats’ who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT’s analysis shouldn’t be ignored altogether.  The full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Today, the committee will continue its consideration of the chairman’s mark for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  We will begin by walking through the mark with the help of Mr. Tom Barthold, the Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, and then proceed to questions from members. Following the conclusion of this this process, which will likely take some time, a modified mark will be provided to members later today which reflects input received from the amendments that have been filed. Because of a large number of amendments that we have processed, the modified mark will be given to members later today, as has been discussed with the Ranking Member, and everyone can then have time to read over the modifications. After that process, we will resume the markup tomorrow morning with the modified mark.  But before we proceed today, I want to make a few comments.  I appreciated members’ participation during yesterday’s session. I was glad to hear everyone’s initial thoughts.  However, a number of issues were raised yesterday that, in my view, warrant some additional responses.  First is the characterization of the bill as a massive tax cut for the rich.  That particular claim was repeated, I believe, by almost every minority member of this committee.   The problem with that claim is that it’s just not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, has concluded that, not only does the bill maintain the current level of progressivity in the tax code, but that the largest tax cuts – in terms of percentage of income – will go to middle-income earners.  I understand that the distributional analysis is inconvenient for the Democrats’ who are committed to the narrative that Republicans intend to give the so-called rich a huge tax cut, but JCT’s analysis shouldn’t be ignored altogether.   Second, there was the repeated claim – supposedly based on JCT analysis – that the bill is a massive tax HIKE on the middle class.  To reach this conclusion, members had to willfully twist the meaning of JCT data. Specifically, members cited a JCT table concluding that some in the middle class may see a tax increase under the bill, while those same members completely ignored the fact that the very same data showed that the vast majority of middle class taxpayers – about 90 percent – were either going to get a tax cut or, at the very least, be held harmless under the bill.  Yesterday, I mentioned a tax bill introduced by the Ranking Member a few years back.  I noted that there were a number of similarities between his previous bill and the one we’re debating today.  However, there are some differences.   For example, I’m not aware of any JCT distributional analysis on the Wyden-Coats tax bill, but the Tax Policy Center did look at some of the potential distributional effects of the Ranking Member’s bill when he introduced it with former Senator Gregg.   Interestingly enough, TPC found that close to 25 percent of middle-income taxpayers would have gotten tax increase under Wyden-Coats, and around 17 percent of the lowest income earners would have seen their taxes raised.  Now, I don’t raise this to play tit-for-tat.  And, I do think there are reasons to not consider analyses by outside think tanks to be the gospel when it comes to these matters.  But, I do think it’s fair to note, for the record, that the Ranking Member, in the relatively recent past, authored and championed tax reform legislation that, according to the standards he and others have used to criticize the current bill, was far more problematic and, according to a think tank often cited by members on the other side, would have raised taxes on far more middle- and low-income taxpayers than the legislation we are considering this week.   Next, I want to address the many complaints about process we heard during opening remarks yesterday.  Members lamented the lack of hearings, arguing that the 70-plus hearings we’ve had since I’ve been the lead Republican on this committee weren’t enough and that we needed multiple additional hearings to examine the specifics of the chairman’s mark. What they didn’t mention was that this demand would be a significant departure from the way this committee has traditionally operated.  Historically, the committee hasn’t held hearings on specific marks issued by its chairmen.  We certainly didn’t do so when we considered the Affordable Care Act, or any other major mark in the modern history of the committee.  It is, therefore, absurd to demand that we do so now.   In addition, we heard members complain about the partisan nature of this exercise.  Yet, I don’t believe a single committee member of the minority even acknowledged the fact that, three months ago, every single one of them signed a letter indicating, among other things, that they would not engage in a bipartisan tax reform process unless Republicans agreed up front to not use reconciliation. Given the history of this committee and Congress’s recent history with regard to tax policy, such a demand is entirely unreasonable.  It is not a rarity for major tax bills to move through reconciliation.  And, the potential use of reconciliation in no way bars the possibility of bipartisan compromise.  Knowing this, I can only conclude that the intent of my colleagues’ letter was to communicate that they had no intention of engaging meaningfully in tax reform.   But, even if I’m wrong in that interpretation, over the past 10 months, I have made countless public statements where I called on my Democratic colleagues to join in this effort, to offer their views and advice without preconditions or upfront demands.   Yet, to my knowledge, no one on the Democratic side said anything to suggest that my conclusion about their prerequisites was incorrect. For what it’s worth, I’m still hoping we can get some Democratic votes in favor of this bill.  As I mentioned yesterday, the vast majority of the major proposals in our bill have enjoyed bipartisan support in the recent past, including from Democratic members of this committee. Middle-class tax relief is something that members of both parties should be able to get behind. Lowering corporate tax rates and making America’s businesses more competitive is something that both Republicans and Democrats have sought to do for years. And, updating our outdated international system has been a bipartisan endeavor for a while a now.  As I noted yesterday, the Senate minority leader, as a co-chair of one of our working groups, drafted a report calling for international tax reforms that are consistent with what we’re trying to do with this bill.  I intend to move forward.  If members want to vote on the substance of the policy and not with an eye toward next November, I think a few more will eventually find themselves supporting this approach. This is a good bill.  It will give real tax relief to middle-class families.  It will grow our economy, increase wages, and create jobs.  I think that, ultimately, most members who decide to vote against it based on partisan strategy will regret taking such a course.  Once again, the next step in this process is to walk through the mark.  We’ll begin that process in a few minutes.    To view a full copy of the chairman’s mark, click here. A score of the mark may be found here. A section-by-section of the mark may be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=327372EA-69CE-467D-8332-65082B64C2CA,"Heller, Scott Amendment to Double the Child Tax Credit Included in Senate's Updated Tax Relief Bill",2017-11-14,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate Finance Committee's newly released Tax Cuts and Jobs Act includes an amendment filed by U.S. Senators Dean Heller (R-NV) and Tim Scott (R-SC) that would increase the child tax credit to $2,000. The current child tax credit is $1,000, and the previous version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the child tax credit to $1,650.  The Senate Finance Committee is expected to begin debating and marking up the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which includes the Heller-Scott amendment to significantly increase the child tax credit, tomorrow. Along with Senators Heller and Scott, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have also led the fight within Congress to increase the child tax credit and welcome the updated provision to allow middle-class families to keep more of their paychecks.   “Giving middle-class families the biggest tax cut possible has been my first priority in tax reform, and an enhanced child tax credit is a significant way to deliver this much-needed and overdue relief to thousands of Nevada families,” said Senator Heller. “I’m pleased the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has adopted my and Senator Scott’s amendment to increase the credit to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000 over current law. This change will quite literally put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of hardworking Nevadans and represents yet another step forward in making the American dream possible again for so many people.” ""We set out to ensure that tax reform would help hardworking American families, and an increased child tax credit will do just that,"" Senator Scott said. ""As the child of a single mother, I truly can't overstate how important these dollars will be for parents across the country, be it to help buy school supplies, a new pair of sneakers or just have a night out as a family. I want to thank my colleagues for their important work on this issue."" “While I still need to see details, I welcome news from the Finance Committee that the child tax credit will be expanded to $2000. I remain committed to ensuring that tax reform provides real and meaningful relief for working American families,” said Senator Rubio. “I am thrilled to hear that the revised Senate tax reform proposal will double the child tax credit to $2,000 per child. Details are still being worked out, and I eagerly await their release. But if true, this could provide unprecedented tax relief for working moms and dads, and a great victory for American families,"" said Senator Lee.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=785B4F35-52E6-4C13-95F5-3A002874814A,The Senate tax bill is exactly what the middle class needs,2017-11-13,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By: Senator Orrin Hatch https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-senate-tax-bill-is-exactly-what-the-middle-class-needs/2017/11/09/1eddff30-c589-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?utm_term=.702bf2d1ad70 For too long, middle-class Americans have struggled with stagnant wages, sluggish labor markets and economic growth well below the historic average. Much of the economic stagnation stems from our nation’s broken tax code, which has become too big, too complex and too antiquated to satisfy the needs of 21st-century Americans. Our tax code is a self-inflicted wound on our economy. That’s why leaders in both the Senate and House, as well as the Trump administration, have been working together on comprehensive legislation to overhaul our tax system. Tax reform will provide relief and bigger paychecks to low- and middle-income families, make America a better place to start and grow a business, and allow American businesses to compete in the global marketplace. Those are the primary objectives of the Senate’s tax plan, which we unveiled this week. Under our proposal, a family of four with income around $73,000 — roughly the median last year — could see their federal income tax bill reduced by nearly $1,500, a decrease of nearly 40 percent, and a corresponding boost in take-home pay. Of course, with close to 150 million individual income-tax filers in the United States, there is substantial variation among individuals and families. Even among those with identical incomes, precise amounts of tax relief will vary. Without question, though, the Senate tax bill provides tax relief to the middle class, as promised. By reducing individual tax rates across the board, doubling the standard deduction and expanding the child tax credit, our proposal would put real money in the pockets of working families to help them save for the future or just make ends meet. Our proposal also vastly simplifies the tax code by clearing away numerous special deductions, credits and the like, while preserving important deductions for things such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and medical expenses. These changes unrig our code so it works for ordinary Americans — not special interests. In addition, the Senate proposal would give a leg up to small businesses, which are engines of job creation in our economy, employing about half of all U.S. workers and responsible for significant amounts of job creation. Under the current system, most owners of small businesses that are not incorporated have to subject all of their income — both their regular compensation and their business income — to individual tax rates, as they “pass through” earnings from their businesses onto their personal tax forms. Our plan provides a simple way to give business owners a lower rate on their salaries, allows them to deduct from their taxable income a significant portion of their pass-through business earnings and protects against those trying to “game the system” by mischaracterizing one form of income as another to get a lower tax bill. Make no mistake, tax reform for small business helps the middle class. The Senate plan will help small businesses expand, invest, increase wages and hire more workers, all for the benefit of middle-class Americans. On top of that, our plan will lower our punitively high statutory corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the industrialized world, from 35 percent to 20 percent, bringing us below the average rate among our major trading partners. The lower corporate rate, coupled with enhanced abilities for companies to recover costs of investing in things such as equipment, will help boost investment, leading to higher productivity and wages. A lower corporate rate, by itself, means gains for workers, because corporate taxes drag down wages. The Senate proposal also modernizes our international tax system, giving incentives, or “carrots,” to attract economic activity to the United States. It also provides “sticks” to patrol against companies eroding our tax base by moving capital, including intellectual property, to low-tax jurisdictions simply to lower their tax bills. Our current business-tax system punishes U.S. companies for doing business and investing in the United States and, in many ways, pushes economic activity outside the country. It also gives significant advantages to foreign companies, which is why so many American businesses have been opting to become foreign companies themselves. The existing tax code means less U.S. economic activity and pushes American jobs, production and intellectual property abroad. Overhauling our business-tax system will increase wages, create jobs, bring back capital and investment and make the United States an inviting place to do business. These reforms — on both the individual and business sides — ultimately translate to significant benefits for American families. We have a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity to take action to improve the lives of the middle class and to help America prosper. This is a time to pay attention to those Americans who have felt left behind in economic stagnation, by providing tax relief and economic opportunity. The Senate tax bill released this week does just that. Click here to learn more about the Senate tax reform proposal.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7CC671A1-E0E7-4BFA-B9F8-3F3A1DB2B0D2,Hatch Adds Muscle to DC Office,2017-11-13,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.—Today Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior Republican in the United States Senate, announced a number of key hires to his Washington office. “I’m thrilled to announce several exciting additions to my team in Washington,” Hatch said. “These new staff members will be critical in helping me achieve my ultimate objective: To deliver real results for the people of Utah. My office has long been recognized as one of the best on Capitol Hill—both in terms of legislation and constituent services. As the Senate works to break through partisan gridlock to tackle our nation’s greatest problems, I’m grateful to have a team with such profound depth and expertise.”  Peter Carey joins Senator Hatch’s Judiciary Staff as a Counsel on criminal justice issues. Peter has worked previously at the Department of Justice, NYPD, Senate Judiciary Committee, and Cadwalader, Wishersham & Taft LLP, where he most recently focused on criminal defense issues. Peter holds a law degree from Georgetown. Jacob Olidort joins as a National Security Advisor and Counsel on foreign policy issues. Jacob is a veteran of the United States Department of Defense, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Modern War Institute at West Point, the CIA, and was most recently an Adjunct Professor at George Washington. Jacob holds degrees from Princeton, Harvard, and Brandeis University. Matt Hoffman joins Senator Hatch’s Finance Committee team as Policy Director.Matt most recently served as a longtime aide to Speaker Paul Ryan in the Speaker’s Office, the Budget Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee. Matt Jensen, a longtime aide to Senator Hatch, will be promoted from Deputy Legislative Director to Legislative Director.  Matt has been with Hatch since 2011 and was key to helping him pass more legislative proposals in the last Congress than any other Senator. Ally Riding joins Senator Hatch’s communications team as Press Secretary. Ally most recently worked as a marketing strategist at Fresh Lime in Utah and has previously worked at Mormon.org as a social media representative.  Senator Hatch has had a number of staffers appointed to critical roles in President Trump’s administration and will be saying farewell to his Legislative Director John Tanner, who will be taking over the Legislative Affairs team at the Department of the Interior.  Hatch’s Judiciary Counsel Ryan Leavitt will be joining the office of newly elected Congressman John Curtis as Deputy Chief of Staff.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=F3436AE6-B0E0-4A02-A289-E9B3E54C9303,"Hatch Opens Historic Tax Reform Hearing, Champions Savings for the Middle Class",2017-11-13,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.— Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened up the Finance Committee hearing by highlighting the benefits of his tax reform proposal, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This historic legislation will make a number of changes to the current tax system and relieve the tax burden for middle-class families to boost the US economy. [Video via YouTube]  Under our bill, a family of four making the US median family income of around $73,000 a year will see their federal income taxes reduced by more than 40 percent. In specific dollar terms, that’s a reduction of nearly $1,500 for a single year.  That’s about $125 more take-home pay for every month. For a single parent making $41,000 a year, they’ll receive a tax cut of more than $1,000, which cuts their overall tax liability by a little more than half. That’s real money that will help tens of millions of American families make ends meet, save for the future, or simply improve their quality of life.  In his remarks, Senator Hatch outlined how his proposal will undergo regular order to receive input from Democrats and Republicans alike. Hatch also reiterated that the ultimate goal of his tax plan is the financial advancement of middle-class Americans. There are many in the middle class who have felt left behind in the sluggish economy under the previous administration, and they feel that they are not being heard.  We have an opportunity this week to show that we are listening, that we will act to get the economy moving again to provide better wages, more jobs, and new opportunities for individuals and families in America.  We can act by reforming our broken tax code in a manner that will provide a growing economy for the benefit all Americans and tax relief targeted toward the middle class.   The full remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below: Today the committee has before it a chairman’s mark of an original bill entitled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This legislation, if enacted, would make a number of important reforms to our nation’s tax system, and relieve the tax burden on American taxpayers, with a focus on middle-class families.  Today’s markup is the culmination of a years-long tax reform effort.  On this committee, both parties have been engaged in this endeavor, which has included the work of multiple chairmen – from both sides of the dais – and almost every member.  Our former chairman, Senator Max Baucus, was very much engaged in this effort, as was his counterpart on the Republican side – another former Chairman, Senator Grassley.  Our Ranking Member, Senator Wyden, has also done a great deal of work in this effort, both as previous chairman of the committee and as a long-time committee member.  Others who have served on this committee and most of those who are now on the committee have done a great deal of work to advance tax reform.  I want to thank all of my colleagues for their work over the years to get us to this point.  I’ll have more to say about members’ individual contributions in the coming days.  For now, I’d like to take a few moments to talk about some of the highlights in the bill that is before us today. First and foremost, this legislation will provide much-needed tax relief to American workers and families. It reduces rates across the board, particularly for those in the middle class who have struggled to get through the past eight years of economic stagnation.  It provides substantial benefits for parents and families and preserves a number of key elements of our existing tax code.  The bill modifies the bracket schedule, setting up seven separate tax brackets, the lowest at 10 percent, and the highest at 38.5 percent.  There’s also an expanded zero tax bracket, meaning more families will see their tax liability eliminated entirely.  While the unified framework that congressional and administrative leaders released last month envisioned fewer rate brackets, we’ve found that the additional brackets help us to better target tax relief to lower-income Americans and to the middle class.  However, even with the additional brackets, the system will be much simpler for the vast majority of taxpayers because the bill nearly doubles the standard deduction, up to $12,000 for individuals, $24,000 for married couples, and $18,000 for single parents.  This, as I just mentioned, effectively expands the zero tax bracket and reduces the tax burden for millions of families – removing entirely the tax liability for many others and eliminating their need to itemize deductions.      According to projections, more than 90 percent of taxpayers will use the standard deduction under this plan, in contrast to around 70 percent today, which makes the process of computing and filing one’s taxes a much simpler proposition.  The bill also expands the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,650 and substantially lifts existing income caps on the credit, allowing many more parents to claim the credit and giving additional tax relief to middle-class families.  Let me give a couple of examples of how this will help: Under our bill, a family of four making the U.S. median family income of around $73,000 a year will see their federal income taxes reduced by more than 40 percent.  In specific dollar terms, that’s a reduction of nearly $1,500 for a single year.  That’s about $125 more take-home pay for every month.  For a single parent making $41,000 a year, they’ll receive a tax cut of more than $1,000, which cuts their overall tax liability by a little more than half.  That’s real money that will help a tens of millions of American families make ends meet, save for the future, or simply improve their quality of life.  Our bill also preserves the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions.  Those are two important provisions that many support and want to keep in place.  We’ve also gotten a number of letters and heard statements from many of our Democratic colleagues urging us to maintain a number of other provisions in the current code.  For example, I received a letter last week signed by 16 Senate Democrats urging us to “protect existing tax incentives that promote retirement savings among American workers.”  Our bill, in accord with the urging of these colleagues, keeps the most popular retirement savings programs – 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts – fully in place.   Others have weighed in on things like the adoption tax credit or the deduction for medical expenses, both of which are unchanged in this legislation.   And, we’ve gotten word from colleagues about their desire to keep the Earned Income Tax Credit where it is.  Our bill protects that provision as well.   Thus far, I’ve only mentioned the individual reforms in the bill.  But, if you look at the policies I’ve mentioned, you should notice that they represent ideas that both Republicans and Democrats tend to support.  In fact, our Ranking Member introduced legislation a few years back that would have significantly brought down individual rates across the board – in a fashion similar to the approach outlined in our framework, I might add – and nearly tripled the standard deduction.  It would have also repealed the alternative minimum tax, as would the bill we’re debating today.  In those and other respects, that previous legislation is pretty similar to ours.  On the business side, our bill will permanently lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.  The current 35 percent corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world.  This is a drag on our economy and is one of a few factors continually chasing companies and economic activity offshore.   If this idea sounds familiar, it should.  Members of both parties, for years now, have called for lowering the corporate tax rate, recognizing that, by being so out of step with the rest of the industrialized world, we put American companies, the workers they employ, and the customers they serve, at a major disadvantage.   For example, in his legislation with former Senator Coats, Senator Wyden proposed reducing the corporate tax rate to 24 percent.  Two years ago, our bipartisan working group on business tax, co-chaired by Senators Cardin and Thune, said that business taxes should be lower.  In fact, that recommendation was the first principle of business tax reform listed in their report.   President Obama, in one of his later budgets, proposed reducing corporate tax rates to as low as 25 percent for certain sectors.  And, last year, President Bill Clinton, even as his wife’s presidential campaign was calling for an increase in corporate taxes, said that we should lower our corporate rates to be more on par with our foreign competitors.  We place the rate at 20 percent in our bill, which is slightly below the current average of OECD countries.   Our bill also lowers the burden on small business through a fairly unique approach.  For pass-through businesses whose income is taxed on individual returns, our bill provides a simple tax deduction for qualified business income, leaving regular compensation to be taxed at the individual rates.  The mechanism involved uses existing provisions of the tax code, which businesses are accustomed to dealing with and have a large body of precedent behind them.  The mechanism provides firm policing against anyone thinking about mischaracterizing one form of income as another in order to unduly lower their tax bill.  Our legislation also expands the availability of cash accounting in order to allow more businesses to simplify their accounting methods. It expands Section 179 expensing for small businesses in order to help owners invest and expand their businesses so they can increase productivity and hire more workers.  The bill also provides businesses with full and immediate expensing for new equipment; again to enhance productivity, create jobs, and grow wages for American workers.   Finally, the bill modernizes our archaic international tax system, moving us more toward a territorial tax system.  Our current worldwide system is another element of our tax code that chases jobs, economic activity, and investment out of the United States.  Under this legislation, American multinationals will be able to bring funds from their foreign subsidiaries back into the U.S. without facing tax liability.  That means an end to the “lock-out effect,” which, in turn, means more investment, production, and economic growth here in America, which translates into more jobs and better wages for taxpayers.   To provide safeguards, our bill also includes provisions to prevent earnings stripping and other practices that erode our tax base.  This is another area where both parties tend to agree.  In 2015, for example, a bipartisan working group on international tax reform, which was co-chaired by Senator Portman and the current Senate Minority Leader, assessed the problems with the current international tax system and recommended changes entirely consistent with the ones we’re proposing with this legislation.  Long story short: Our proposed international reforms are not just a Republican wish list or some sort of favor to big companies.  They are, in fact, well within the bipartisan mainstream.   All told, the business tax proposals in our bill are designed to grow our economy, increase wages, promote the expansion of businesses, and, of course, create jobs.  These sections of our bill will modernize our business tax system, finally updating it for the 21st Century. Thus far, I’ve only gone over some of the highlights of the bill.  There’s more about the bill to discuss, which we’ll get to throughout the course of this markup.  However, before I conclude, I do want to respond in advance to some of the claims we’re certain to hear this week about this legislation.  There are a number of myths being spread about this bill and what we intend to accomplish.  I want to put some of those to bed right now.  For example, I’m quite certain we’ll hear a lot about supposed process fouls here today.  We’ll hear that we’re rushing the bill through committee and that we haven’t had enough hearings.  We’ll also likely hear about bills drafted in secret and Democrats being shut out of the process. Let me set the record straight on these points.  Under no objective standard is this bill being rushed or forced through this committee or through either congressional chamber.  As I noted earlier, this committee’s efforts on tax reform go back years.  Let me outline some of the work we’ve done to lay the groundwork just since I became the lead Republican on the committee in 2011. In that time span, just short of seven years, we’ve held about 70 tax hearings, most of which included in-depth discussions on ways to improve our code. In the first year, I was joined by all the Republicans on the committee in submitting 21 pages of tax reform recommendations to the so-called Super Committee.  This was the start of laying the groundwork. Chairman Baucus and I, as part of our “blank slate” approach in 2013, produced 10 separate bipartisan options papers discussing concrete policy solutions to fixing our tax code. At the end of 2014, I released an extensive report – more than 300 pages long – discussing, in some detail, ideas and principles to be considered during the tax reform debate. The following year, Senator Wyden and I oversaw the creation of five separate bipartisan working groups, all of whom produced reports, which provided the foundation for even more hearings. In other words, we’ve discussed all of these topics at length.  We’ll also be walking through the bill as part of this markup.  There is, quite simply, no reasonable basis to claim that more hearings, more discussion, and more deliberation have to take place before we can move forward.   Virtually every proposal contained in the bill has been the subject of public debate for many years.  Working with colleagues in Congress and the administration, and after close consultation with committee members, we’ve put together this chairman’s mark.  There’s nothing unusual about this process, except that, with other matters, we don’t usually spend so many years of study and discussion before putting a more concrete proposal together.  Furthermore, I have personally invited Democrats to participate in this process on a number of occasions, both publicly and privately.  I’ve sat in our committee in front of cameras and microphones and asked colleagues to come to the table with objective minds and without preconditions.  Our friends on the other side decided it was in their best interest to put some fairly strict preconditions on their involvement.  Some of those preconditions did shift a bit over time, like the later retracted, specious demand that President Trump release his tax returns before Democrats would come to the table, an ultimatum made by key members of the Senate Democratic leadership.  But, one precondition that never went away – and was shared by almost every Democrat in the Senate – was the demand that Republicans swear off the use of budget reconciliation before any real bipartisan discussions take place.  Forty-five Democrats signed a letter in August stating that the public abandonment of budget reconciliation was, in their words, a “prerequisite to any bipartisan tax reform effort.”  Essentially, our colleagues demanded that we empower them to kill any potential tax reform bill before they’d even begin talks.  That’s not the kind of statement one usually hears from someone who wants to work in good faith toward shared goals.  It’s also at odds with the history of the Senate.  Over the years, the Senate has moved many tax bills through reconciliation, and, in almost all cases, the bills ended up getting votes from both parties.  Reconciliation in no way precludes the possibility of bipartisanship and Republicans were prepared to follow a similar route with this particular process as was followed in previous tax bills and budget bills.  So, just so everyone is clear, it was the Democrats’ own preconditions that kept them from engaging on tax reform.  There was an open seat at the negotiating table, they collectively chose not to sit in it.  Another claim I expect to hear is that our bill is a massive tax cut for the so-called rich. This claim is false. Under the bill, the top rate will go down by roughly one percentage point.  But, the bill repeals a number of tax credits and deductions, many of which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, meaning that the slightly lower rates will apply to a larger base of income.  The Joint Committee on Taxation produced a distribution table that clarifies a number of key points, including the fact that Americans in all income categories will receive a tax break under our bill, with the middle class getting a larger percentage of the reductions. JCT also found that our bill will NOT shift the tax burden from the high-end onto taxpayers down in lower brackets.  In fact, according to JCT, those with incomes of $1 million a year or more will see their share of the overall tax burden go up.  So, while the bill lowers rates across the board, it actually increases the share of taxes paid by those earning a million dollars or more in annual income.  Let me say that again: Our bill increases the share of the overall tax burden paid by millionaires and billionaires. Let me address another JCT analysis that includes more good news.  Some of my colleagues have latched onto a JCT table showing that some percentages of taxpayers in the individual cohorts will see their taxes go up under the bill.  I believe the talking point is that 13 million families in the middle class will see their taxes go up next year if the bill becomes law.  Let’s set aside the fact that it is virtually impossible to create a tax plan that will impact every taxpayer the same way.  And, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that my colleagues’ estimates, which include virtually no context, are correct. Even then, the critics of our bill are missing the forest for the trees.  They would have the American people believe that the real story is that a relatively small minority of taxpayers could see a slight increase in their taxes, with the biggest portion of overall increases going to upper-middle-class taxpayers.  But, to do that, they have to obfuscate the fact that, under that same JCT analysis, about 90 percent of those same middle-class taxpayers are getting a tax cut, or, at the very least, are held harmless under our plan.  I know my colleagues prefer to label any Republican tax proposal as a massive tax cut for the rich, but that isn’t the case here.  Our bill is primarily focused on tax relief for middle- and lower-income taxpayers.  And, the analysis by our non-partisan congressional scorekeeper has confirmed that the legislation we’ve crafted accomplishes that goal.  I’m sure we’ll also hear more about tax breaks for big corporations under the bill.  Yet, I would think that anyone who has previously gone on record in support of lowering the corporate tax rate will refrain from attacking this bill for doing just that.  Of course, I won’t hold my breath on that.  But, if that simple baseline of intellectual honesty were to be observed in this markup, most of the Democrats on this committee would be unable to criticize our effort to lower corporate rates as most of them have endorsed a similar approach in the recent past.  I’m sure we’ll also hear about the death tax today.  But, I hope that, with that discussion, we’ll get an explanation from some of our Democratic colleagues, including my friend, the ranking member, why they are so critical of our efforts to simply mitigate the impact of the death tax when they’ve voted in the past to repeal the tax entirely. I also hope they’ll have an explanation for America’s farmers and businesses for why their deaths should be considered a taxable event when they choose to pass their life’s work, which has already been taxed, at least once already, to the next generation.  Another matter that we’ll likely hear about this week is the state and local tax deduction.  I’m sure a number of our Democratic colleagues will argue that the deduction is an absolute necessity. I plan to ask them why they want to forego middle class tax relief in order to preserve a tax deduction that overwhelmingly benefits the taxpayers at the very high end of the income spectrum, particularly after they’ve been publicly lamenting the very idea of cutting taxes for the so-called rich.    I could go on here.  But, I think my overall point is pretty clear.  So far we’ve heard a number of attacks on our tax reform bill that just can’t withstand much objective scrutiny.  But, once again, objectivity isn’t really in order these days. At this point, one thing should be clear:  Our goal with this effort is to provide tax relief and bigger paychecks to low- and middle-income families and to make America a better place to start and grow a business.   There are many in the middle class who have felt left behind in the sluggish economy under the previous administration, and they feel that they are not being heard.  We have an opportunity this week to show that we are listening, that we will act to get the economy moving again to provide better wages, more jobs, and new opportunities for individuals and families in America.  We can act by reforming our broken tax code in a manner that will provide a growing economy for the benefit all Americans and tax relief targeted toward the middle class.   I want to once again thank all of my colleagues for their work to get us this far.  I’ll have more to say about their individual efforts in the coming days.   But before I conclude, I do want to note something that a few observers have recognized, namely, that the mark, as originally introduced, leaves us with some work to do in order to make the reforms permanent, particularly on the business side where job creators need to be able to plan many years into the future.  We are, of course, aware of this problem and are working to ensure that the reduced rates and additional reforms designed to bring investment back to the United States and create more American jobs remain in place past the 10- year budget window.   There’s no real cause for concern at this point.  But I do want to make clear that we’re looking at a number of alternatives that will fill the necessary gaps and we have every intention of making the business reforms permanent.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=733,Congresswoman Mia Love Celebrates Veterans Day,2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY, UT -- Congresswoman Love celebrates November 11th, Veterans Day, as a day our nation appreciates and honors those who have served our nation and their families.  However, as an American citizen, her gratitude runs 365 days a year. “My family and I give thanks every day for the men and women who serve, and who have served in the past,” Rep. Love said.  “In Congress, I am their advocate. I proudly introduce and support every veteran-related bill that I can in the House.  We must keep the promises we made to our veterans.” Rep. Love added:  “Veterans – I’ve got your back.” Congresswoman Love’s support is reflected in her legislative record. Here is a list of all the veteran bills she has sponsored in the 115th Congress Session: Sponsored: ·         H.R. 1495 – would end unfair collections practices triggered by a technicality in veterans’ benefits law. This would ensure no families have to endure the hardship of having to return benefits following the death of a loved one. ·         H.R. 2555 - Requires each VA medical facility director to annually certify compliance with scheduling directives, and would make six additional VA Deputy Under-Secretary positions subject to Senate confirmation. Cosponsored: ·         H.R. 299 - Provides relief to Vietnam Veterans who suffer the effects of being exposed to Agent Orange during Naval service in Vietnam. ·         H.R. 512 – Allows veterans to permit authorized Congressional staff to access their records in the databases of the Veterans Benefits Administration for the purpose of assisting in claims processes. ·         H.R. 632 – Would designate veterans who participated in nuclear cleanup work on the Marshall Islands as “radiation-exposed veterans”, making them eligible to receive the same healthcare and benefits given to other service members who were involved in nuclear tests. ·         H.R. 846 - This legislation would eliminate the so-called “widow’s tax,” which is a policy that requires the surviving spouses of members killed in the line of duty or from a service-connected cause to forfeit the Survivor Benefit Pension annuity. ·         H.R. 1005 – This bill would ensure service members who are 70% or more disabled from a service connected injury can receive Adult Day Health Care at any State Veterans Home across the United States. ·         H.R. 1058 - This bill would include podiatrists in the VA’s definition of “physician” and provide better foot care for our vets. ·         H.R. 2519 – directs the U.S. mint to produce a commemorative, limited edition coin that would raise funds for important causes to veterans. ·         H.R. 3018 - This legislation is designed to help veterans transition to the civilian workforce and expand the career paths that are available to them ·         H. Con. Res. 45 - The resolution expresses the sense of Congress that those who served in the bays, harbors, and territorial seas of the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 9, 1962 – May 7, 1975, should be presumed to have been exposed to the toxin Agent Orange and should be eligible for all related Federal benefits associated with the Agent Orange Act of 1991 ·         H.R. 1928 – Ensures the immediate payment of military death benefits to survivors of fallen servicemembers during federal government shutdowns or any time federal spending lapses ·         H.R. 3832 – Aims to reduce opioid addiction by directing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin to connect VA health care providers to a national network of state-based prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). PDMPs track prescribing data to identify abuse patterns in patient.   ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=62B06A10-A6F4-42E8-90FE-FCB6EB7ACD26,Hatch Bill Promoting Better Care for Veterans Passes in the Senate,2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC— Today, the State Veterans Home Adult Day Health Care Improvement Act, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), passed in the Senate. This critical veterans’ affairs legislation will enable more veterans to live at a home with a caregiver instead of being institutionalized in a nursing home. Hatch’s bill will also cut costs and increase the standard of living for veterans needing specialized medical assistance. “I am honored to work in behalf of the many veterans in the great state of Utah and the country,” Hatch said. “These heroic men and women and their families deserve our steadfast support. My bill would allow qualifying veterans to receive the care they need while also giving them flexibility to live at home and remain connected to their friends, family, and communities. I call on my colleagues in the House to quickly send this bill to the President’s desk, so he can sign it into law for the betterment of our brave veterans.” Statements of Support Gary Harter, Executive Director, Utah Department of Veterans and Military Affairs: “We are grateful to Senator Hatch for taking on this important issue. This legislation will provide Utah’s veterans with the services they need and deserve while still maintaining their independence. Utah’s four state veterans homes would benefit greatly from this legislation. Most importantly this is great for Utah’s veterans.” Sharon Murphy, President, NASVH: “The National Association of State Veterans Homes is thrilled about the passage of this legislation because it helps our most disabled veterans, as well as their caregivers, in order for them to receive the essential services they deserve without the burden of institutionalization.”  Terry Schow, Retired Director, Utah Department of Veterans Affairs: “Senator Hatch is always a true champion for veterans. I am thrilled that S. 324 passed the Senate. This important legislation will give our veterans the opportunity to receive the care they need and deserve, while still allowing them the comfort of living at home and staying connected with their families.” Background This bill, S. 324, would allow qualifying veterans (70 percent or more service-connected disabled) to receive adult-day medical model care. Benefits: Allows veterans to receive the same care as living in a nursing home while allowing them to live at home and stay connected with their families. Provides respite for veterans’ families while veterans are at daily care for up to eight hours a day. Provides respite for caregivers that are currently administering 24-hour care for veterans living at home. Health professionals and policy experts agree that when it comes to long-term care, adult day healthcare costs less and supports an equal or higher standard of living compared to nursing home care. This bill is supported by The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Air Force Association, and the National Association of State Veterans Homes.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=946B3D6E-DB10-4CDB-97FE-30436741AF19,"Hatch Tax Plan Will Save an Average Middle-Class Family $1,500 Annually",2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, DC—Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, his proposal for comprehensive tax reform based on the unified framework put together by Hatch, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Trump administration. The legislation will update the US tax code, and provide tax relief for middle-class families and small businesses in Utah and around the country. Estimates show this bill could save a typical US family of four up to $1,500 annually (more details to come throughout the afternoon). [Video via YouTube] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will bring our outdated tax code into the 21st century and provide much-needed tax relief for hardworking American families and small businesses. Our tax reform package will unleash the American economy, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and greater investment here at home. Passing tax reform is more important now than ever. The cost of doing nothing would be too much for the American people to bare. Now, after nearly a decade of stagnant wages and sluggish economic growth, we finally have a President who is serious about working to ensure that we have a tax code that actually works for the American people. Background The Tax Cuts and Job Act:  Lowers individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans by affectively expanding the zero tax bracket and maintaining a 10 percent bracket, allowing hardworking taxpayers to keep more of the hard-earned money, make ends meet, and save for retirement. The bill includes a reformed rate structure that targets tax relief to the middle class while maintaining the existing tax distribution, and a 38.5 percent bracket for high-income earners. Nearly doubles the standard deduction to reduce or eliminate the federal income tax burden for tens of millions of American families. The standard deduction will increase from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples. For single parents, the standard deduction will increase from $9,300 to $18,000. Recognizes the unique challenges faced by parents with young children by: Expanding the child tax credit from $1,000 to $1,650 and allowing many more parents to claim the credit by substantially lifting caps; Preserving the child and dependent care tax credit to help working parents care for their children and older dependents—such as an aging grandparent—who need support; Preserving the adoption tax credit to help families with the high costs of adopting children; and Allowing parents to more effectively save for the education costs of unborn children. Preserves the deduction for charitable contributions, continuing a long recognition of the importance of private philanthropy for the churches and community organizations that daily provide aid and assistance to those in need. Protects the home mortgage interest deduction for existing mortgages and maintains the deduction for newly purchased homes up to $1 million. This incentive for homeownership provides tax relief to current and aspiring homeowners. Continues popular retirement savings programs, such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts, to help Americans build their retirement nest eggs and prepare for the future.   (Download full Policy Highlights document here)",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-office?ContentRecord_id=326F5E2C-9995-4425-97C7-CA68D87EEAB2,"November 9, 2017 - Mobile Office Visit to Tooele County",2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"What: Mobile Office Visit to Wendover When: Thursday November 9th, 2017 @ 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM Where: Wendover Community Center, 112 E Moriah Ave., Wendover, UT 84083",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=A9242510-BE21-412D-9D72-E0650B054929,"Sens. Lee, Rubio Release Statement on Senate Tax Plan",2017-11-09,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) released the following statement today in response to the Senate Finance Committee unveiling their tax reform proposal: ""We appreciate all of the work our colleagues have done to draft the Senate tax bill, and the progress for tax reform that it represents. While we are glad to see an increase to the child tax credit, like the House bill, it is simply not enough for working families. “We continue to believe that the best way to provide real relief to working families is through a straightforward, significant, and permanent expansion of the child tax credit — preferably doubling the credit to $2,000 per child and expanding its applicability to payroll taxes. The Senate is not going to pass a bill that isn’t clearly pro-family, so we look forward to working with our colleagues to get there.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=C2CB65F7-2209-4538-AFAD-B60F68A400F3,A Necessary Turning Point on Judicial Confirmations,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"By Senator Orrin G. Hatch November 8, 2017 http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/judicial-nominees-hatch-democrats  There are few duties of the United States Senate as solemn, and as consequential, as the consideration and confirmation of judicial nominees. Attention in the media is often focused on the Supreme Court, and for good reason, given how powerful the Supreme Court remains.  But also critical are federal circuit court judges, as they will provide the last word on the thousands of important cases (nearly 99 percent of all appealed) which never make it to the highest court. At times of great controversy, at times of political upheaval or uncertainty, our courts stand as the final bulwark, defending individual liberty and assuring that government remains constrained by the limits imposed by the Constitution. And because Article III judges serve for life, their impact will persist far beyond the tenure of any one administration or any one session of Congress. Last week, my colleagues and I undertook a historic effort to confirm judicial nominations submitted to us by President Donald Trump. In 2016, Republicans made a promise to the American people: If elected, we would move expeditiously to confirm qualified judges, committed to the rule of law and determined to right the course of judicial activism all too prevalent over the last eight years. With the confirmation of four highly qualified circuit court nominees, we continued in the work to fulfill that promise. Democratic pushback That effort has been undertaken, however, against constant and unflinching opposition from Democrats in the Senate. In every way conceivable, they have made the work of confirming judges more difficult. As everyone recognizes, the Constitution gives the power to nominate and appoint judges to the President, and it gives the power to confirm to the Senate. Rather than working with us, the Democrats in the Senate have proven consistent obstructionists. First, obstruction has been offered in the form of what’s called the blue slip. Traditionally, the blue slip process has been used to assure consultation between the White House and home state senators of judicial nominees. Democrats and their grass-roots and media allies, however, are demanding that the blue slip process be used as a single-senator veto. They insist that a single home-state senator be able, at any time and for any reason, to stop a nomination dead in its tracks without any Judiciary Committee consideration at all. I can understand why they want to weaponize the blue slip like this. After all, they once used the filibuster to prevent confirmation of Republican judges, but then abolished nomination filibusters so that no one else could use it. Democrats are today trying to turn the blue slip into a de facto filibuster. They want a single senator to be able to do in the Judiciary Committee what it once took 41 senators to do on the Senate floor. The next obstruction weapon of choice has been completely unnecessary delays on the floor of the Senate. Democrats have done everything they can to slow the procedures necessary to get to a roll call vote. For context, before 2001, only 1 percent of judicial nominees with no opposition were confirmed by a time-consuming roll call vote. Under President George W. Bush, that figure jumped to 56 percent. Before 2001, there had been four filibusters of judicial nominees, and no majority-supported judicial nominee had ever been defeated by a filibuster. Under President George W. Bush, Democrats conducted 20 filibusters and ultimately kept multiple appeals court nominees from being confirmed. Delays like this continue to this day. In July, we held another unnecessary cloture vote on a district court nominee. After voting 97-0 to end a debate that no one apparently wanted in the first place, Democrats forced us to delay the confirmation vote by two more days. This was the first time in history that a unanimous cloture vote was not followed immediately by a confirmation vote. It could have taken a few hours, but instead took two weeks from the filing of a cloture motion to the final unanimous confirmation vote. Delaying tactics What was the point of all that? It’s simple. Democrats want to make confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees as cumbersome and time-consuming as possible. At this point in President Barack Obama’s first year, when Republicans were in the minority, the Senate took cloture votes on fewer than 1 percent of the executive and judicial branch nominees we confirmed. This year, with Democrats in the minority playing confirmation spoiler, the Senate has been forced to take cloture votes on more than 27 percent of the nominees we confirmed. In fact, including those we will take this week, Democrats have forced us to take 51 cloture votes on President Trump’s nominees so far this year. That is seven times as many as during the combined first years of all nine presidents since the cloture rule has applied to nominations. Lest we forget, in 2013 Democrats abolished the ability of 41 senators to prevent confirmation. Today, they are demanding the ability of one senator to prevent confirmation. If that is not an abuse of the confirmation ground rules, it’s hard to tell what is. Recently, I have taken to the floor to denounce these dilatory tactics by the Democrats. As I argued during past administrations of both parties, nominees should be debated and processed based on the merits, not tit-for-tat political games. Last week, the Republicans in the Senate showed that we plan to get this job done, one way or the other.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=61B9F517-2564-4379-82BD-7A7467EB8ADF,Hatch Statement on Utah Unveiling of DEA 360 Program,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leader in the fight against opioid abuse, issued a statement today on the DEA’s announcement. “After months of effort, I’m thrilled that the DEA has accepted my recommendation to launch the DEA 360 Program in Utah. The gravity of the opioid epidemic in Utah cannot be overstated. Consider that each week, we lose six Utahns to opioid overdose—a number that has increased 400 percent in the last fifteen years. The goal of DEA 360 is simple: Stop the deadly cycle of heroin and opioid pill abuse by eliminating drug trafficking organizations, partnering with the medical community to raise awareness, and strengthening local organizations to build drug-free communities. I believe it will be an incredibly effective strategy in our fight against this devastating opioid epidemic.” DEA Agent Brian Besser, who is leading the implementation effort, also noted, “DEA has deployed this strategy with great success in eight other cities—cities like St. Louis, Milwaukee, Louisville, Pittsburgh, just to name a few. However, this is going to be the first DEA 360 strategy deployed for a state.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=52D64F5A-9DA6-47E3-AC61-CC996B4D2C56,"Sens. Lee, Paul, King, Crapo, Merkley Request Defunding of Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion",2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Today, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) joined with Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Angus King (I-VT), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Tom Udall (D-NM) in sending a letter to Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, requesting he defund the Department of Justice’s reinstated expansion of civil asset forfeiture practices. The letter reads, in part: “Adoptive forfeiture and equitable sharing are particularly egregious elements of civil asset forfeiture because they not only violate due process but also attack principals of federalism. DOJ’s reinstated policy allows state law enforcement officers to circumvent state limitations on civil forfeiture by turning seized property over to federal officials for forfeiture in exchange for up to 80% of the proceeds of the property. This perversely incentivizes local law enforcement to confiscate suspect property even where state laws forbid the practice.” The full letter and online version of this release can be viewed here. Civil Asset Forfeiture Letter by Senator Mike Lee",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=CFADD588-63B6-48CD-9076-3D7E6398CCAF,"Sens. Lee, Leahy Support USA Liberty Act",2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON - Today, the House Judiciary committee reported the USA Liberty Act to the House floor with 27-8 support. The bill is sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and the legislation reauthorizes and reforms Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendment Act. Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) partnered with these House colleagues last year to pass the USA FREEDOM act, which ended NSA bulk metadata collection and contained significant reforms to other surveillance authorities. Sens. Lee and Leahy released the following statement regarding today’s passage of the USA Liberty Act: “We applaud the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers for advancing legislation that would reauthorize Section 702 surveillance authorities with some important improvements. The bill codifies an end to “about” collection, closes a loophole that allows this national security tool to be used for standard domestic criminal investigations without a warrant, and contains many other provisions to protect the privacy and civil liberty interests of Americans. This bill is part of a promising, bipartisan effort to provide some long-overdue reforms to this surveillance authority. Just as we did last Congress, we are working with both House Judiciary Committee leaders as well as with leading voices in the Senate, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein, to introduce our own strong reform bill in the Senate in the near term.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/socialcapitalproject?ContentRecord_id=86C368CE-3E73-4F2E-88F3-DB70756199C1,The Class Divide in Marriage,2017-11-08,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The American Enterprise Institute recently published a new report by Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang that highlights the class divide in American marriage. As the authors explain, prior to the 1970s family life looked similar across socioeconomic levels, but today there are stark divides across class when it comes to marriage, divorce, and unwed childbearing. The authors show that poor and working-class Americans are much less likely than their middle- and upper-income peers to marry or remain married. They are also far more likely to have children outside of marriage, such that unwed childbearing has become the norm among the poor and increasingly common among the working class. Middle- and upper-income Americans, on the other hand, nearly always wait until marriage to have children. (The authors define ‘poor’ as those with less than a high school education or a those with a family income below the 20th percentile; ‘working class’ refers to those with only a high school education or some college, or with income between the 20th and 50th percentiles; and ‘middle and upper class’ are those with a college degree or an income above the 50th percentile.) The result of the marriage divide is increased disadvantage along several dimensions. Poor and working-class children—and their parents—not only have lower household incomes, but they also fail to benefit from the resources marriage can provide: economies of scale and shared parenting, for example. Children in single-parent households are far more likely to experience poverty and on average are at a greater risk for a variety of negative outcomes. As we show in our recent report on the opioid epidemic, among less educated men, those who are single are much more likely to die of an opioid overdose. The explanation for the widening economic divide in marriage can’t be explained solely by changes in the economy. One common argument is that the decline of U.S. manufacturing employment in the 1970s resulted in fewer jobs for non-college educated men, which decreased their marriageability and drove down marriage rates for this group, thus increasing family instability. However, as Wilcox and Wang note, economic changes fail to account for other eras of American history that have experienced economic decline—most notably the Great Depression of the 1930s—without experiencing the drastic changes that have taken place in the last 50 or so years. Furthermore, marriage continued to decline even during economic booms. The authors point to the 1990s as an example, but could also have cited researchers Melissa S. Kearny and Riley Wilson who recently found that areas of the U.S. that experienced rapid employment growth for non-college educated men due to the fracking boom did not see increased marriage rates. Instead, Wilcox and Wang note that “a series of interlocking economic, policy, civic, and cultural changes since the 1960s in America combined to create a perfect family storm for poor and working-class Americans.” They note that cultural factors in particular have affected lower-income Americans to a greater degree for a few reasons. Perhaps most notably, they point out that the breakdown of norms about dating, sex, marriage, and childbearing have made relationship decisions more complicated for everyone. But middle- and upper-class Americans have more cultural and educational resources to help them traverse these complexities—or they may simply feel in greater control over their lives—and thus are better able to make such decisions with a longer time horizon than are their lower-income peers. Wilcox and Wang also hypothesize that because working-class and poor Americans don’t have as large an economic or social stake in marriage, cultural norms are more significant for maintaining their marriages. For example, the authors point to homeownership as a barrier against divorce. But because poor and lower-income Americans are less likely to own a home, the authors note, there are “fewer reasons to avoid divorce.” While it makes sense that having greater assets connected to marriage would provide a barrier to divorce, it also seems plausible that a working class couple would have substantial financial reasons to avoid divorce. Staying married could mean the difference between remaining afloat financially and falling into a precarious economic situation where each parent now must maintain their own separate household. Another reason that the authors include for increased family instability among poor and working-class Americans are the marriage penalties of the means-tested welfare system. For example, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) penalize marriage (among dozens of other means-tested welfare programs that all essentially penalize marriage). This is because when a couple marries, their income is counted together but the household income threshold for benefits remains the same—effectively decreasing the amount of welfare benefits the household is eligible to receive. For example, a single mother of two children with annual earnings of $15,000 would receive about $5,200 in food stamp benefits annually, but if she marries a man who also earns $15,000, they would no longer be eligible for SNAP. Finally, the authors point to the increased disconnection of poor and working-class Americans to social networks and organizations that have traditionally served to strengthen marriage—in particular, churches. While church attendance has become less common among all Americans, it has particularly declined among the poor and working class. Church attendance is linked with higher marital quality and a lower likelihood of divorce. Regardless of the marriage divide, the vast majority of unmarried Americans across socioeconomic levels want to get married. However, a large portion of Americans are not getting or staying married. The middle- and upper-class reap the benefits of this vital institution, while the poor and working-class are further disadvantaged for its weakness.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://robbishop.house.gov/media/press-releases/bishop-bill-seeks-transfer-land-hyde-park-ut,"Bishop Bill Seeks to Transfer Land to Hyde Park, UT",2017-11-07,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Rob Bishop,B001250,robbishop.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) has introduced the Hyde Park Land Conveyance Act which directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer 80 acres of BLM land to the City of Hyde Park, UT. Rep. Bishop issued the following statement: This common-sense transfer is a win for all involved. The city of Hyde Park will be able to further pursue its community goals, and the federal government will be free of a burden it shouldnt be shouldering. This is something that should have been done over three decades ago. BACKGROUND: In 1985, the United States Department of the Interior determined that an isolated tract of Bureau of Land Management land in Cache County, UT was eligible for disposal The decision document states that, due to its location, size, and lack of access, this parcel is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another federal department or agency. In the subsequent 32 years since the Interior decision, this land has remained the responsibility of the BLM which has a backlogged deferred maintenance burden of ~$810 million. Hyde Park City welcomes the transfer and is supportive of this legislation.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reps-stewart-polis-senators-flake-heinrich-introduce-bipartisan,"Reps. Stewart, Polis, Senators Flake, Heinrich Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Complete Parks, Wilderness Areas and Increase Revenues for Schools",2017-11-07,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Chris Stewart (R-UT), Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced H.R. 4257, the Advancing Conservation and Education (ACE) Act. The bipartisan legislation aims at facilitating state trust land exchanges for parcels locked inside designated wilderness and other federal conservation areas. The ACE Act helps equalize funding for education in public lands states by enhancing the revenue-generating capacity of lands designated for the purpose of funding education. “This legislation is a win for Utah, a win for school kids, and a win for conservation,” said Rep. Stewart. “Exchanging state inholding for land outside of protected areas will allow states to generate more revenue, provide increased protection, and help support rural economies. The ACE Act proves we can come together to solve complex public land issues.” “I am pleased that we can collaborate on common sense legislation together as Democrats and Republicans in both the House of Representatives and Senate. By cutting red tape between state land trusts and the federal government, we can protect our most precious wilderness areas, while generating more revenue for local governments and schools that desperately need it,” said Rep. Polis. “Inholdings present challenges for both public land managers and state trust land commissioners because differing policies and missions of the respective agencies can lead to conflicts over management. By exchanging state inholdings for land outside of protected areas that is more appropriate for development and more likely to produce revenue, the ACE Act will solidify protections for designated areas like national parks and wilderness while increasing revenues for state trust land beneficiaries like schools and hospitals,” said Sen. Heinrich. “I'm proud to partner with Senator Flake to find bipartisan and pragmatic solutions that will increase revenues for our public schools and improve access to the outdoor places Westerners hold dear.”  “This bill represents an absolute win-win situation. It makes management of federal land more efficient, while providing additional revenue for state land trusts and schools. These are two worthwhile goals that when combined represent a genuine opportunity for those in the West,” said Sen. Flake.  The ACE Act has diverse support, including from the Western States Land Commissioners Association and The Wilderness Society. “The ability of our state land commissioners to utilize state trust lands to raise revenue for education is made more difficult when these trust lands are surrounded by federal conservation areas. The ACE Act is a win-win solution that will help our land commissioners better generate badly needed funds for schoolchildren while completing federal conservation areas so that they can be properly protected,” said Harry Birdwell, President, Western States Land Commissioners Association and Secretary of the Commissioners, Oklahoma Land Office. “This legislation will better secure America's parks and wilderness while supporting rural economies and providing revenue for schools. Through this bill, our public lands will be better protected and school kids will come out ahead,” said Paul Spitler, Director of Wilderness Policy at The Wilderness Society. The full text of the bill can be found here. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=8D1BB69B-D392-466F-A9B1-67111A312810,Sen. Lee Demands Transparency from CBO on Health Care and Taxes,2017-11-07,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Tuesday after hearing reports that the Congressional Budget Office was in the process of changing its health care model to show that repealing the individual mandate would save significantly less money than the agency claimed just a few months ago during the heath care debate: “I feel like I’m trapped in a game of Calvinball,” Sen. Lee said. “Just a few months ago the CBO had us playing by one set of rules for debating health care policy and now we are being told those rules have been completely changed for tax policy. This is simply unacceptable and it is why Congress must pass the CBO Show Your Work Act of 2017.” The CBO Show Your Act would require the CBO to publish its data, models, and all details of computation used in its cost analysis and scoring. CBO would keep its role as official scorekeeper of congressional budget proposals – but now the American people and the economic community would be able to see what’s going on in all those spreadsheets and algorithms. The CBO Show Your Work Act of 2017 has 14 co-sponsors including, Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK),  Ron Johnson (R-WI), James Lankford (R-OK), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Perdue (R-GA), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=13902A81-08A9-4E01-97B0-582C50D98808,"In Utah, the Federal Government Puts Prairie Dogs Over People",2017-11-06,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In southwestern Utah, federal regulations are artificially pitting people against prairie dogs—to neither’s benefit. There are about 80,000 Utah prairie dogs in the region, and the species is listed as threatened. State biologists would like to move the creatures from backyards and playgrounds to public conservation lands, but that’s forbidden under federal rules. The result of the regulations has been conflict but little progress toward lasting recovery for the species. For years, towns like Cedar City have been stuck in what Greg Sheehan, principal deputy director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has called “a quagmire of federal bureaucracy.” Washington’s heavy-handed regulations make it a crime for these Utahns to do things that the rest of us take for granted, like building homes in residential neighborhoods or starting small businesses. Cedar City can’t even protect its playgrounds, airport and cemetery from the disruptive, tunneling rodent. Tired of being ignored, local residents banded together to form People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners. The group, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit in 2013 arguing that the federal regulations were unconstitutional. Where did Congress get the power to pass such intrusive rules? Whenever this kind of question arises, the stock answer is the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which allows lawmakers to regulate commerce “among the several States.” But this species of prairie dog is found only in Utah, and it has no conceivable connection to interstate commerce. In 2014 a federal district court agreed, striking down the regulations as unconstitutional. “If Congress could use the Commerce Clause to regulate anything that might affect the ecosystem (to say nothing about its effect on commerce), there would be no logical stopping point to congressional power,” wrote Judge Dee Benson. As the residents of Cedar City cheered, the state of Utah began work on a plan that would be better for people and prairie dogs alike. The central component was for biologists to relocate the rodents to lands where they could be permanently protected. Conflict gave way to real conservation. In 2010 the prairie dog population had been estimated at 40,000, but the figure has since doubled, providing the highest count since surveys began in the 1970s. “It was a win-win for everyone,” Mr. Sheehan said this summer, when he was still head of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. “Local communities, local governments, and private landowners were happy. And Utah prairie dogs have never done better.” Sadly, this proved to be only the beginning of the story. The federal government appealed Judge Benson’s ruling, arguing that the Commerce Clause could be stretched to reach noneconomic activities that affect any species. This summer, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Benson, putting the restriction on moving prairie dogs back into place. Once again it is a crime for state biologists to do what is best for the species. In its ruling, the appeals court embraced a theory of federal power beyond any the Supreme Court has ever accepted. It held that if Congress adopts a “comprehensive scheme” to address some issue, then any regulation that furthers that purpose is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, even if it is unrelated to commerce. Were that theory to prevail, there would be no limit to what Washington could regulate. But People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners did not give up. In September, the organization filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. We urge the justices to do so, not only to restore the state conservation plan but also to vindicate constitutional limits on federal power. This week, 23 states, led by Utah, filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling for the justices to take the case. Utah’s two senators— Mike Lee (one of the authors here) and Orrin Hatch —have introduced a bill called the Native Species Protection Act. It would reform the Endangered Species Act and return to states the responsibility of protecting animals found in only one state and having nothing to do with interstate commerce. The bill calls on Congress to respect and abide by the Constitution’s limits, to restore Utah’s ability to pursue real recovery of its prairie dogs, and to give other states the same opportunity.  As Utah has shown, states are well equipped to protect threatened species. State biologists and officials have more local knowledge and are more accountable than far-off regulators. The Supreme Court and Congress should restore federalism to its rightful place and enforce the Commerce Clause’s intended limits. Utah’s prairie dogs and countless other species depend on it. Op-ed originally published in the Wall Street Journal",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ContentRecord_id=E8B4382A-AB63-4938-A38D-FD6B4C6E4D07,The social element of the opioid crisis,2017-11-06,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Editor's note: The statistics referenced in this article are published as part of Sen. Lee's Social Capital Project. The United States has suffered through opioid crises before but never like this. First in the 1970s and then in the 1990s, opioid-related deaths spiked across the country, but the current crisis is bigger — much bigger. In 2016, approximately 64,000 people died from drug overdoses, surpassing all-time death rates for car crashes, HIV and guns. Two-thirds of those 64,000 deaths were caused by opioids. These are just some of the data points our team at the Joint Economic Committee uncovered in its latest Social Capitol Project report, “The Numbers Behind the Opioid Crisis.” One reason for the severity of this crisis, our research finds, is that this time, Americans can buy opioids legally. In the 1960s, four out of five heroin addicts began their addictions with heroin. But this time, three out of four heroin addicts either obtained their opioids through a doctor or someone else’s prescription. Drugs obtained freely from friends and family with legal prescriptions account for 40 percent of prescription opioids taken by opioid abusers. Not only are opioids legal to buy this time around, but most of the time they are also free for the user — another person, usually the taxpayer, picks up the bill. In 2010, patients paid just 19 percent of the cost of opioids purchased in the United States. Insurance companies paid 25 percent, Medicare paid 26 percent, Medicaid paid 13 percent and other government programs paid 16 percent. These third-party payments helped fuel an explosion in opioid prescriptions. By 2016, nearly 215 million prescriptions were filled for 61.8 million patients, or nearly one-fifth of the population. Patients have been showered with pain pills: In 2015, doctors prescribed almost enough opioids in the median U.S. county to give each resident a two-week supply. The fallout from this drug explosion has been staggering. Opioid-related deaths have quadrupled since 1999. Between 2015 and 2016 alone, deaths from synthetic opioids more than doubled. Here in Utah, the opioid death rate increased by 118 percent while suburban emergency rooms saw a 171 percent increase in opioid-related visits. Unfortunately, it appears the worst of this crisis is yet to come. While abuse of prescription opioids seems to be falling with a recent drop in opioid prescription rates, deaths from prescription opioids continue to rise. Users also appear to be switching to even stronger narcotics. Early 2016 data suggest that fentanyl — a synthetic drug 25 to 50 times more powerful than heroin — has surpassed heroin in overdose deaths, skyrocketing 540 percent in three years. These deaths have not been evenly distributed. Some populations have been harder hit than others. Those with no more than a high school education make up just 40 percent of the population in the United States, but in 2015, they accounted for 68 percent of opioid-related deaths. Never-married and divorced Americans make up just 32 percent of the population, but in 2015, they accounted for 71 percent of all opioid-related deaths. And single men with just a high school education have an opioid death rate almost three times higher than single women with the same education. Clearly, there is a strong social component to our opioid crisis. Individuals who do not have a strong family or good job appear to be much more at risk of succumbing to addiction. As we look for ways to solve this crisis, we should keep these social components in mind. More research is needed, but it does appear that loving families help addicts recover from addiction. More importantly, families appear to be a strong defense against becoming addicted in the first place. Op-Ed originally published in the Deseret News",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=C5C48738-C9ED-4758-BE54-D68E71CA73CF,TONIGHT: Hatch to Receive Liberator Award for Efforts to End Human Trafficking,2017-11-04,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Orrin Hatch,H000338,www.hatch.senate.gov,,,legacy,"SALT LAKE CITY—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, will receive Operation Underground Railroad’s Liberator Award at OUR’s Shine OUR Light gala this evening. Due to the Senate’s weekend work schedule, Senator Hatch is unable to attend the event in person but sent the following video which will be displayed at the gala. Video Via DropBox Senator Hatch spoke of his work to end human trafficking, including legislation he sponsored to facilitate increased cooperation between the federal government and groups like O.U.R. As you may know, I have worked with O.U.R. to pass legislation in the Senate facilitating more collaboration between groups like O.U.R. and the federal government. You all are on the front lines in the battle against modern slavery, and I want you to have every resource at your disposal. My bill will ensure that you do. Hatch also spoke about a briefing he hosted in Washington just weeks ago for Ivanka Trump and his fellow Senator’s, with OUR’s Tim Ballard. You can find pictures and video from that briefing here. B-roll video and photos from the briefing can be found here Last week, I invited a number of my Senate colleagues and Ivanka Trump—the White House’s point person on trafficking issues—to sit down with Tim and have a conversation about ways we can do more to help. We left with a number of action items, and I believe this is just the beginning of a collaboration that will bring about real change. Senator Hatch’s full remarks: I’m thrilled to receive this award tonight, and I apologize I couldn’t be with you in person. The Senate is holding a rare weekend session to accomplish a number of important things by the end of the year. I’ve been honored to work with O.U.R. over the last few years in our shared goal of ending human trafficking. As you may know, I have worked with O.U.R. to pass legislation in the Senate facilitating more collaboration between groups like O.U.R. and the federal government. You all are on the front lines in the battle against modern slavery, and I want you to have every resource at your disposal. My bill will ensure that you do. Last week, I invited a number of my Senate colleagues and Ivanka Trump—the White House’s point person on trafficking issues—to sit down with Tim and have a conversation about ways we can do more to help. We left with a number of action items, and I believe this is just the beginning of a collaboration that will bring about real change. I’m so grateful for all you do, and I’m inspired by your work. You give people hope, you give people life, and you are changing the world for the better. Please keep it up, and know that you will always have a friend in this old Senator.   Background on the Liberator Award (Via OUR) The Liberator Award is given to an individual who has displayed the courage and determination to make a significant impact in the effort to fight human trafficking. Someone who has gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking, or who has made great strides to affect positive change regarding this horrible crime within the Hotel Industry.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=730,"Statement on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Introduced in the House",2017-11-03,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"""The ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’, is a tax plan that will put more money in Utahn’s pockets, create more jobs, and close loopholes for the rich. Some of the most important benefits for Utah families are the lowering of individual tax rates; the near doubling of the standard deduction, from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples and $6350 to $12,000 for single earners; and the creation of a new Family Credit, which includes an expansion of the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600. I’m excited that this will be accomplished by maintaining the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and by allowing people to keep investing in their 401(k)’s. This is the kind of progress that working Utahns deserve, and I will continue to work to defend their interests.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=731,Letter to VA Secretary,2017-11-03,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"This week, Congresswoman Mia Love sent a letter to David Shulkin, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), requesting that the Department take action to address nonpayment problems plaguing the Veteran’s Choice Program. You can read the full letter below. The Choice Program was created to expand access to medical coverage for Veterans by allowing them to seek care with community providers when appropriate, in addition to VA Medical Centers. However, nonpayment issues have prevented full participation, limiting options and causing significant problems for Veterans. This problem was noted in a GAO report from early 2017, which recommended “improved oversight of VA community care” to rectify the issue. “The Choice Program was introduced to ensure Veterans have more options and shorter wait times as they seek the care they need,” Rep. Love said. “However, late payment and nonpayment threaten the success of the program and cause additional stress for both patients and providers. This is unacceptable, and we must correct it.” *** The Honorable David J. Shulkin Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue NW Washington, DC  20420    Dear Secretary Shulkin:   I write to bring an ongoing issue of concern to your attention.  As you know, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has contracted, through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP), with Health Net Federal Services (HNFS) to ensure eligible Veterans receive access to the care they need in a timely manner. HNFS provides support to the region in which my state, Utah, is included.   While in office, I have regularly heard from providers who have struggled to receive reimbursement from HNFS.  For some providers, late or non-payments have reached critical proportions for their practice. As a result, many providers are no longer able to assist veterans seeking services through VCP.    I have seen providers in my own district struggle with this issue. The Military and Veterans Counseling Center (MVCC) in Murray, Utah serves active military members as well as veterans battling depression, anxiety, PTSD, sexual trauma, and the effects of grief and loss. It also assists those in need of counseling for readjustment and injury or to improve family, home, and social situations.  Their therapists are experts in their field and possess combat-related trauma training and an essential knowledge of military culture. They provide a crucial service to veterans in the community.     MVCC came to my district office for help because nonpayment of veterans’ bills was threatening their ability to assist veterans seeking services through Choice. MVCC presently has almost $21,000 in payments outstanding, representing 155 separate billings. Many of these date back more than a year.  Some of the issues they have experienced with HNFS include claims rejected for incorrect color form, payment on some older claims but not others in the same timeline, and submitted claims not even showing in the HNFS system.  Often times, HNFS failed to respond to the provider until my office became involved.   The providers that care for these veterans are delivering a crucial service. But if they are not paid, they will be unable to provide those services, leaving veterans with limited care options. Ultimately, this may force them into emergent care. This will increase costs for both the VA and the veteran.  Some providers, unable to collect payment from Health Net, have chosen to seek payment from the veteran. When payment is not forthcoming, collections agencies may become involved, impacting the veterans’ credit.  Though there may be rules against providers going to veterans for payment, the existence of the rule makes little difference to the veteran experiencing the stress of collection efforts or reduced credit scores.   As you are aware, this problem was also highlighted in GAO’s February 2017 High Risk Report, which recommended “improved oversight of VA community care to ensure—among other things—timely payment to community providers”. In light of the GAO Report, and the experiences of providers and veterans, I respectfully request information on what immediate steps the VA is taking to address nonpayment to providers serving veterans through VCP, particularly with regards to HNFS.   I look forward to your response and thank you for your dedicated service to veterans. Please know that I am always ready to work with you to supply the very best care to these brave men and women.   Sincerely,   Rep. Mia Love",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://stewart.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stewart-s-bipartisan-bill-passes-house,Stewarts Bipartisan Bill Passes House,2017-11-03,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Chris Stewart,S001192,stewart.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Today, the House passes H.R. 3922 which included the text of Rep. Chris Stewart’s (R-Utah) bipartisan bill, the National Health Service Corps Strengthening Act of 2017. The bipartisan legislation aims to reauthorize the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) for five years.   The NHSC is a national program that provides loan repayment and scholarship awards to primary care, mental health, and dental health professionals in exchange for practicing in federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) – locations where it is difficult to naturally entice health care professionals to practice. Additionally, the NHSC matches funding for State-based loan repayment programs that assist health professionals in underserved areas. The NHSC has helped more than 50,000 health professionals meet the medical needs of underserved and vulnerable populations for over 40 years.  The current funding for this program expired on September 30, 2017. The National Health Service Corps Strengthening Act of 2017 reauthorizes the National Health Services Corps program for an additional five years and increase its funding by $10 million each year. The bill will extend health care services to five million more Americans and enable 5,000 more health professionals to participate in the program. “The NHSC program brings access to many Utahns who are living in rural communities and have limited access to care,” said Congressman Stewart.  “I’m proud of the work the House has done. The Senate must now act on this meaningful legislation to ensure rural Americans have access to quality healthcare.” The NHSC is widely recognized- both in Utah and across the country- as a success on many fronts.  According to the National Health Service Corps Stakeholders and the Association of American Medical Colleges, the program:  Improves access to health care for the growing numbers of rural and urban underserved Americans;  Increases state investments in recruiting and retaining health professionals;  Provides incentives for practitioners to enter primary care;  Reduces the financial burden that the cost of health professions education places on new practitioners; and  Helps ensure access to health professions education for students from all backgrounds. ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=7DFE386E-13E4-4DE7-815F-7F15E422D0A7,Sens. Lee and Rubio Respond to House Tax Plan,2017-11-02,2017,2017-11,Republican,House,UT,Mike Lee,L000577,www.lee.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON – Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement Thursday in response to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act released by House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX): “We appreciate the hard work and countless hours our colleagues in the House have put into crafting this legislation. As we’ve long said, tax reform should be about making the code more pro-growth and pro-family. The House bill is an important step in the process.” “The best way to provide real relief to working families is through a straightforward, significant, and permanent expansion of the child tax credit. We wish the House draft had done more on this front – preferably doubling the credit to $2,000 per child and expanding its applicability to payroll taxes. We look forward to working with our colleagues to make sure working families are moved to the front of the line in the Senate bill.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://love.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=25&itemid=729,Bipartisan Love Bill to Update Higher Ed Reporting,2017-10-31,2017,2017-10,Republican,House,UT,Mia Love,L000584,love.house.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON D.C. -- Representatives Mia Love (R-UT) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) recently introduced important bipartisan legislation to update and modernize the information reported by U.S. institutions of higher education. This will give students and their families the information they need to make informed decisions as they pursue further education. The Comprehensive Student Achievement Information Act of 2017 (H.R. 4125) adjusts the outdated reporting requirements of community colleges to ensure more granular and accurate information is presented regarding completion rates. Updated requirements would present a more accurate image of student attendance patterns, completion times, and the relationship between the two. “I have always been a strong advocate for getting students as much information as possible to aid them in making decisions regarding their education,” Congresswoman Love said. “Unfortunately, much of the information available to them today is incomplete, outdated, or inaccurate. My bill would make much needed reforms to this information, providing students with the improvements they deserve.” Congresswoman Fudge adds:  “I am pleased to support legislation that will provide a better understanding of the role our community colleges play in serving the educational needs of the American workforce,” said Congresswoman Fudge. “This legislation will update reporting requirements for our nation’s universities and colleges, providing a more accurate picture of student attendance and graduation rates.  Every student will be properly counted and potential enrollees will be able to make more informed decisions when choosing an institution of higher learning.” From Salt Lake Community College, President Deeneece G. Huftalin said: “Salt Lake Community College and community colleges across the nation play a critical role in providing opportunities for students to succeed in their educational pursuits. Unfortunately tens of thousands of community college students who earn certificates or degrees are classified as “drop-outs” because they don’t complete their studies in the timeframe currently prescribed by the federal government, a timeframe that doesn’t take into consideration that the majority of community college students attend part-time and as a result take longer to graduate.” President Huftalin continued: “We join community colleges in applauding and thanking Congresswoman Mia Love and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge for their leadership on this important issue. H.R. 4125 will ensure that the millions of community college students who graduate with certificates or degrees are appropriately recognized by the federal government as college completers.” Huftalin: “This legislation efficiently and effectively updates the antiquated federal statutory completion rate calculations.  If enacted, this legislation will ensure that the accomplishments of community colleges are better understood by prospective students, policymakers, and the public.  We urge its passage as part of the Higher Education Act reauthorization,” said Dr. Alex Johnson, President of Cuyahoga Community College. Dr. Walter G. Bumphus , President and CEO, American Association of Community Colleges: “This  legislation is a top community college priority and will ensure that students, families, and policymakers gain a much more accurate picture of community college student outcomes.  Under current law, their successes are grossly understated.  We commend introduction of this bill and are pledged to advocate strongly for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.”     ###",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z