Annual Report (2014)
Annual Report (2014)
n UAL REPORT
TO THE
STATE OF UTAH
To the Citizens of Utah:
In this annual report I will share with you some of the work I have been engaged in
during the past year. While this compilation highlights many legislative initiatives
and policies I have taken a stand for, it cannot begin to show the hard work and heavy
lifting my staff has tirelessly engaged in while serving the people of Utah. My staff is
extraordinary, and I am very thankful for all they do for our State and for the nation.
I continue to tout and promote what I like to call the “Utah Model,” as part of my
positive reform agenda. The core of that agenda is based on bringing to Washington
lessons I’ve learned from the success of our state, where free-markets and institutions
of voluntary civil society create an environment in which individuals thrive and
communities flourish. I am more convinced than ever that American freedom doesn’t
mean you are on your own – American freedom means we are all in this together. I love to share our successes
with my colleagues in Congress and point out how and why the Utah model works and specific ways to get
Washington to take a similar approach.
The work reflected in this report is guided by an approach to politics best described by President Abraham
Lincoln, when he declared that the proper role of government is “to lift artificial weights from all shoulders
… clear the path of laudable pursuit for all … [and] afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race
of life.” As I see it, my job as your senator is about more than just cutting big government – it is about fixing
broken government to enable more Americans than ever before to pursue happiness.
You will see in this report my reform efforts relating to the tax code, our criminal justice system, higher
education, immigration, religious liberty, lands and energy, regulatory overreach, and upward mobility, among
many others.
Utah has a wonderful story and even better people. For example, I have shared the principles we apply to lift
the poor out of poverty, which Utah does better than any other state, with many politicians and civic groups
around the country and even with Pope Francis in Rome. I hosted Utah’s business community to have a
dialogue about empowering entrepreneurs and how to get government out of the way of our innovation
economy while removing unfair regulations from the backs of small business owners.
Traveling the State of Utah I have witnessed first hand amazing individuals, extraordinary organizations, and
heroic communities creating opportunities for all. Among the stories herein are those of SwitchPoint in St.
George, an organization that helps the homeless begin a journey toward self reliance; a family who waited years
for their father, Sergeant Encarnarcion Trujillo, to receive a long overdue Purple Heart for his valiant service in
WWI; and students at our high schools and universities who care about their country and our future.
There is much to do in this new year and many opportunities to enable upward mobility for the poor, expand
opportunity for hardworking Utahns, and put an end to special privileges for the well-connected and political
elite. I will continue to keep these as my priorities. Restoring a limited government “of, by, and for the people,”
that ensures every Utahn and every American has a fair chance to pursue their version of the American Dream,
is my goal in the new Congress.
Your participation in my monthly town-halls, your insightful correspondence, and calls into my office are all
vital to our future and putting government back to work for you. I invite you to continue this journey with me.
Sincerely,
Mike Lee
United States Senator, Utah
Utah
Model
Uni
tedSt
atesSenat
or
Mi
keLe
e
A Conservative Vision for the Next
Generation
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but visiting Hillsdale reminds me of
what a special place a college campus can be at its best.
The last time I was on a college campus was this past August when I held
a series of town hall events across Utah, many of which were held in
college auditoriums.
Every town hall event is unique, but for the most part they all share one
common feature. This may come as a surprise to many of you, but, despite
often being hosted on college campuses, the average age at most of my
town hall events is – how should I say this? – slightly higher than the
average age at the college where the event is taking place.
But there was one town hall this year that was different. At this particular
town hall I noticed a group of young people sitting in the audience. When I
say “young,” I don’t mean young for one of my town hall events – I mean
young... young like all the students in this auditorium.
So naturally when I saw them my first thought was: they must be lost. After
all, we were on a college campus; chances were that they accidentally
stumbled into the wrong event.
Polite Utahns that they were, I figured they were waiting until just the right
moment – perhaps when we all bowed our heads for the opening prayer –
to get up and make a break for the exit.
As it turns out, they were students from another nearby college, and they
had come with one of their professors. I discovered this because, after my
opening remarks, the professor raised his hand and asked respectfully, on
behalf of his students: “Could you please explain to these young people
why exactly they should care about what you have to say?”
As I saw it, this professor was actually asking two separate questions.
First, why should young people care about politics, period?
And second, even if young people do care about politics, why should they
care about what I – a conservative member of the Republican Party – have
to say about it?
Young Americans have the dual distinction of being the age cohort that is
most disengaged from politics, and also the cohort most supportive of the
Democratic Party.
It occurred to me that, in a way, he was asking these questions not just for
the group of students that he brought with him, but for young Americans
everywhere.
And so I’d like to use my time this evening to try and answer these two
questions.
What I mean here is politics in the highest sense of the word. Politics in
this sense is the activity first of ordering and then of sustaining the regime
and the political constitution of a nation. It is the province of common
deliberation over the common good, guided by “reflection and choice,” as
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 1, rather than dependent on
“accident and force.”
In Federalist 10, James Madison explained why: “As long as the reason of
man continues [to be] fallible, and [as long as] he is at liberty to exercise it,
different opinions will be formed.”
Man’s fallible nature: this is the eternal source of our political disputes...
this is the reason politics still matters today.
But for those who have never read the Federalist papers, or been lucky
enough to hear Dr. Arnn explain the word “architectonic,” there is a more
obvious and practical reason young people should care about politics…
because politics shapes the world they inhabit. Politics may not dictate
your path in life. But it absolutely will dictate whether that path is clear or
obstructed, safe or treacherous.
Young adults are constantly told that they are our country’s future. But in
truth, they are a large and growing part of our present. In truth, the world is
becoming more and more yours every day, with one glaring exception.
When young people today see something that’s not working, they expect
that it can be fixed, through some combination of ingenuity, cooperation,
and technology. Whatever you need, there’s an app for that.
Tired of sifting through a media filter? Get news straight from the source on
Twitter.
Nothing good on TV? Fire up Netflix.
Local restaurants not doing it for you? There’s probably a food truck with a
social media account somewhere nearby.
And when something big needs doing, beyond an individual’s own needs,
everyone chips in and comes together to do it. They crowd-source, they
Kickstart.
Resist the change. Preserve the status quo. Punish the disruptive
innovators.
So the answer to the first question – why should young people care about
politics – is, on a certain level, pretty straightforward: politics matters
because it will in many ways define the world you inherent, and set the
parameters of the good you can do in it.
What about question number two? If the young should indeed be
interested in politics, why should they pay any attention to what a
Republican politician has to say?
After all, most of you have probably heard the old adage, often attributed to
Churchill: “If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if
you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.”
There’s probably some truth to this – though, for what it’s worth, I’ve been
heartless all my life.
But I think the most clarifying way to bring out these differences between
the Right and the Left is to compare the visions of American life underlying
our immediate political and policy agendas.
These visions represent the basis for how each side understands the
present and what they hope for in the future... they inform how we
diagnose a problem and they shape the solutions we propose.
Anyone remember it? For those fortunate enough to have avoided it, the
“Life of Julia” was a series of animated slides telling the story of a fictional
woman who was meant to represent the average American woman.
Viewers could scroll through the slides and see how, at every stage of life
from age 3 to 67, Julia was not just enriched – but fulfilled – by a federal
government program.
When I saw it, I wasn’t sure if I should laugh or cry... I think I did both.
But I also learned from it, because it revealed the Left’s extraordinarily thin
and empty view of American life. Theirs is a vision of society in which there
are only two players: Julia and Washington, D.C.... the individual and the
state.
All other relationships and pursuits are virtually non-existent. And to the
extent they appear in Julia’s life, they are incidental to – and also
dependent upon – the benevolence of the state.
Julia’s family is mentioned twice, but only in passing and only as a conduit
to additional government benefits.
Community makes just a single appearance, and it’s not until the age of
67, when Julia begins receiving Social Security benefits, which –
somehow, someway – [QUOTE] “allows her to volunteer at a community
garden.”
Indeed, our lives are lived – and made meaningful – in the space between
these two extremities... as husbands and wives; parents and children;
teachers and students; neighbors and neighborhoods; volunteers and
congregations; bosses and employees; businesses and customers; clubs,
teams, and associations.
It is in this vital space between the isolated individual and the impersonal –
often oppressive – state where lives intersect, relationships are formed,
knowledge is shared, opportunity is created, and happiness is pursued.
It is in this space where Americans have always come together, in the free-
market economy and voluntary civil society, to meet each other’s needs,
improve each other’s lives, and overcome common challenges.
We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But
really, they are networks – networks of people and information and
opportunity, where your success depends on your service.
America has always been – and continues to be – a place where the most
frequent, the most effective, and the most enriching forms of common
action occur in that vital space between the individual and the state.
Unlike any other country in the world, he admired, “In the United States ...
There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of
the collective power of individuals.”
If you think about it, that’s just another way of saying... “There’s an app for
that.”
In other words, in America freedom has never meant “you’re on your own”
– it will always mean “we’re all in this together”... we all have mutual
responsibilities to each other and all of our fellow citizens.
And it’s important to note that this conservative vision is not anti-
government.
In Tocqueville’s time, the township was the most common form of local
government, and he praised its centrality in American life. “Without the
institutions of a township,” he said, “a nation can give itself a free
government, but it does not have the spirit of freedom.”
Progressives, of course, reject all of this. For them, everything that stands
between the individual and the federal government is viewed with
suspicion.
As the Left sees it, only government workers in the nation’s capital are
sufficiently enlightened and detached from their own self-interest to act in
the common good... and of course it’s just a coincidence that Washington,
D.C. is surrounded by six of the ten wealthiest counties in the country.
For too long their binary view of society has been firmly imprinted in the
minds of America’s youth not because it’s more attractive than the
conservative vision, but because it’s gone virtually unchallenged.
Even worse than surrendering the field, too often the Republican Party has
actually embraced the progressive caricature of conservatism as radical
individualism.
Thus the task facing conservatives today is, quite simply, to offer an
alternative... the true conservative vision that rejects the false choice
peddled by progressives and proves there is a path between “Galt’s Gulch”
and Detroit.
It will always be our duty to reject the intolerance, conformity, and coercion
of hyperactive government. But we must do more. We must also bear
witness to the true diversity – of thought and of character – that naturally
flourish when individuals, families, and communities are free to live in
accordance with their convictions and the dictates of their conscience.
We don’t need to give up our support for investing in physical and financial
capital. But we must also insist that the most important investments we
make as a nation will be in human and social capital.
And I’m here tonight to ask all of you not to join me in this effort, but to lead
it.
Improving America's Regulatory
Climate
In future years, the theme of the conference will change, but the purpose
will stay the same. We want to bring together Utah’s leaders – in business
and civil society and all levels of government - to discuss what we can do
together to meet the greatest challenges facing our state and our country.
This year, we decided to focus on reforming our regulatory system. It’s one
of the greatest challenges facing our country, holding back economic
opportunity, and stifling American exceptionalism.
When you talk to people in the private sector – whether people in large
corporations or very small businesses, non-profit groups, too – that word
comes up again and again: stifling.
Government regulations have put up so many barriers that people today
sometimes feel like they can hardly move.
And the effects on our nation are enormous. For instance, our economy is
becoming less entrepreneurial. Business start-ups have been declining for
years. This is dulling our economy’s competitive edge. That may be
tolerable for some people fortunate enough to have already succeeded in
life, but for young people just starting out, for poor families trying to work
their way out of poverty, for middle class families facing increasing
uncertainty... stagnancy is crippling.
And once you do have a job, there are thousands of pages of Don’t do
this... Not like that... That’s not approved.
Now, government may mean well... But that’s no excuse for smothering
people with so many nagging rules that they squeeze all the adventure,
discovery, and freedom out of life. Government has become like one of
those “helicopter parents” you see at the park, nervously hovering over
their children to make sure they only ever do perfectly safe things and only
under mommy and daddy’s supervision.
When we see these helicopter parents – and my kids tell me the really
tough ones are called “Black Hawks” – we wince, right? Not only for the
parents themselves, who we know are unnecessarily stressed out of their
minds. But we feel for those kids, too, who never get to explore and
overcome the challenges in life that enable growth and make us all who we
are.
That’s what regulations are doing today. Just a few weeks ago, the federal
government issued new rules that effectively ban school bake sales. A few
years ago, Washington banned the production of incandescent light bulbs.
The federal government still regulates how large a toilet tank you’re
allowed to have in your house. The city of New York recently banned Big
Gulps. Supposedly this is all for our own good – government knows better.
But these and other rules do not protect the American people from
themselves – they prevent the American people from being themselves.
And they prevent the economy from growing and innovating accordingly.
This isn’t the so-called Nanny State – that’s an insult to a lot of great
nannies! This is “helicopter government,” hovering over us like an
overbearing parent.
But there are two problems with this arrangement. First, we’re adults. And
second, the government is the American people’s child, not the other way
around. We created it. We’re supposed to tell it what to do. We’re
supposed to define its boundaries.
I don’t need to recite to you statistics about how our $2 trillion federal
regulatory state hurts businesses and holds back our economy. You are
the ones who work in those burdened businesses in this sluggish
economy, and so you know the problem first-hand.
The figure is: 51-to-1. This is the ratio of regulations issued by bureaucrats
to laws passed by Congress in 2013.
We get to pass laws and boast that we “did something.” But then if it
doesn’t work out, we can join the public in outrage against those
incompetent bureaucrats who messed up.
But it’s not win-win, is it? Though it may make individual politicians’ re-
elections easier, it is corroding public trust in our political institutions. The
American people are tired of bad public policies, and their elected officials’
most common response is that it’s someone else’s fault.
And that’s exactly why we’re here today: if Congress ever takes up real
regulatory reform it’s going to be because of a coordinated, constant effort
from outside the Washington beltway. That includes everyone in this room,
because, like most Americans, the citizens of Utah are practical people,
who specialize in solving problems, not manufacturing them.
So we’ve got two problems to solve here. First, the cost of regulations to
our economy, and second, the dysfunction unaccountable policymaking
visits on our society. I’d like to add a third point to consider, as well.
One of the biggest problems with regulations is that they are rarely evenly
distributed throughout the economy. Rather, rules are written in such a way
that specifically hurts some businesses and helps others. This is not only
unfair – it is corrupting. It incentivizes businesses to invest their money in
influence instead of innovation.
And because all these regulations usually increase overhead costs, they
tend to be more easily borne by large, incumbent businesses than by
smaller, younger start-ups.
But it’s precisely those new businesses that produce the majority of job
creation, and inject into the economy the competitive energy that compels
all firms to constantly adapt and innovate.
The only way for individuals and families with low incomes and low skills to
climb the economic ladder is to work more, work harder, and acquire new
skills. But government regulation of commerce, labor, and education all
conspire to pull that economic ladder up out of the reach of the Americans
grasping for those bottom rungs. The regulatory status quo is leaving them
behind – and we have a moral duty to change that.
And happily, even with the helicopter government hovering overhead, the
American people are starting to re-assert their control over their own
economy.
Everywhere you look, you see the growth of the so-called “sharing
economy.” Companies like Uber, KickStarter, and AirBnB have followed
the lead of eBay and Craigslist and found success by tapping into the
greatest resource in our entire economy – our people.
At the end of the day, Uber is no different from 7-11. The genius of the
market is that it ties personal success to interpersonal service. It’s part of
what has always made America strong and prosperous and exceptional.
That’s what we’re here to discuss, and I look forward to hearing your ideas.
I think we need to take that option away from them. I think we need to start
moving the regulatory process out of the nameless, faceless bureaucracy
and back into Congress. Right now, the main reason government imposes
onerous regulations is that no one gets fired for it. If Congress were directly
accountable for them, you can be sure heads would roll in the next
election. That’s where change comes from – by forcing government to
work for the people instead of the other way around.
There are a couple of ideas out there to move policy in this direction. One
idea is the REINS Act, which I am co-sponsoring along with Sen. Rand
Paul.
Another idea that I’ve been working on, which I’ve discussed with some of
you and hope to get more input going forward, is a new congressional
regulatory budget process.
The idea would be to force Congress to vote every year on the amount of
regulatory cost each federal agency could impose on the economy. We
could debate it, get input through an oversight process, and force
ourselves to prioritize. Which rules are essential, and which are just getting
in the way?
I’m happy to discuss these ideas more with you throughout the day. But we
organized this event to listen. To get this right, we need specialized
knowledge about the industries and businesses that actually have to live
under all these regulations. And that’s why we invited you all here today.
There is an old saying in politics that you can’t beat something with
nothing. It seems to me that those of us who want a better regulatory
system have to do more than just oppose the one we have; we need to
propose the one we want.
My goal for this conference is to begin a dialogue that can help inform
policymakers at every level of government to start defining and refining
exactly what a modernized, reformed regulatory system would look
like. Thank you very much.
Bring Them In - Remarks to the
Sutherland Institute's Center for
Utah's Economy
Thank you to the Sutherland Institute for hosting this event. I am grateful
for all you do to stand firmly and faithfully on the front lines of the fight for
human dignity, economic opportunity, and social solidarity.
And yet, more than 50 years after President Lyndon Johnson’s famous
“War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics.
Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late
1960s, the poverty rate across the country has hardly budged. And nearly
every strategy we have employed in this “war” – dealing with everything
from health care to criminal justice – has failed to achieve genuine change
in our most vulnerable communities.
In that same time, participation in civil society, marriage, and religion have
deteriorated in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship
with social isolation.
All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that America’s war
on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.
On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new,
bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if conservatives summon
the courage to lead it.
The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but
in 1776: when we declared our independence and affirmed the equal rights
of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For more than two hundred years, the United States –through good times
and bad – has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of
the world.
We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But
really, they are networks – networks of people and information and
opportunity.
What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone
– regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on
themselves or the government, but on each other. In a free market
economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause,
your success depends on your service.
For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation
has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and
cooperation.
Together, America’s free-enterprise economy and voluntary civil society
enabled millions of ordinary Americans to protect themselves – and each
other – from material want and social isolation … long before Lyndon
Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government
authority.
Defenders of today’s status quo say that any critique of our welfare system
is really just a thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the social safety net. But
what we all should want – and what I certainly do want – is not to destroy
the safety net, but to make it work.
“to elevate the condition of men – to lift artificial weights from all shoulders,
to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start
and a fair chance, in the race of life.”
In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what
government ought to do about it.
As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was, for most people, not an
absence of money, but an absence of opportunity – a lack of access to
those social and economic networks where human opportunities are
created.
Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor – they
were poor mostly because they were isolated. And however unintended,
too many government programs today only exacerbate that isolation.
Networks of opportunity formed within the free market and civil society are
not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are
blessings that poor families need more access to.
And so, in America’s original war on poverty, government did not give the
poor other people’s money. It gave them access to other people.
In Lincoln’s era that meant dredging rivers, building canals, and cutting
roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities.
These public goods weren’t designed to make poverty more tolerable – but
to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to
market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at
which knowledge could be developed and shared.
Likewise, poor children today possess the ability to acquire the knowledge
and skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. But what they lack is
access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and
those skills are acquired.
Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting
people up. It’s about bringing people in.
Our education policies trap poor kids in failing schools, and our broken tax
code treats marriage and work as costly burdens rather than essential
pathways to personal happiness and prosperity. Meanwhile, we have a
health care system that confines the most vulnerable among us to the
lowest quality care and criminal justice laws that tear apart families and
fracture communities.
These are two of the most trusted, innovative, and influential research
institutions in the country, thanks largely to their work developing a
conservative “social justice agenda.”
For both institutions, it’s not just an “anti-poverty” agenda that we need –
it’s a “pro-happiness” agenda. They recognize that people living in poverty
aren’t data points or statistics – they’re human beings who, like all of us
here, want to lead prosperous and satisfying lives.
And while happiness may not mean the same thing for everyone, it always
involves some combination of what Arthur calls “institutions of meaning,”
which exist in the vital human space between the isolated individual and
the oppressive state: faith, family, community, and work.
This is a critical point to remember in our fight against poverty: some of our
most important investments will be not in economic capital, but in human
and social capital. This begins, of course, with everyone’s primary source
of human and social capital: the family.
People of good will can disagree about whether government policy should
privilege families, in recognition of their unique role in the pursuit of
happiness and justice. But I think everyone should be able to at least agree
that government should not unfairly penalize families.
The idea behind the bill is simple: for those in our prison system who are
not violent and pose no threat to our communities, we have a moral
obligation to get them re-integrated into our nation’s networks of social and
economic mobility.
For this, Utah offers a great model for the rest of the country. All across the
state we see real, meaningful change in our communities achieved through
a combination of efficient local government, a prosperous economy, an
active civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare
system in the world.
All of this was living proof of what ordinary people can do – and will do – to
help those around them. Even without a bureaucrat in D.C. telling them
what to do and how to do it, the people of Washington County came
together – as neighbors, business owners, and friends, volunteers and
local government officials – to lift up the needy, bring in the marginalized,
and restore hope to the most vulnerable.
I want to close with another story from our state – a story that shows the
Switchpoint model is really the Utah model in miniature.
In what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general
conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the
inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings.
Instead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of
the handcart groups. It told of:
“between five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing
handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling,
chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet
bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.”
Brigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message:
“Many of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts … and
they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.”
He said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty
young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with
twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those
pioneers in the wilderness.
“I will tell you all,” Young said, “that your faith… and profession of religion,
will never save one soul of you… unless you carry out just such principles
as I am now teaching… Go and bring in those people now on the plains.”
Days later, they reached the pioneers – with food and blankets and hope.
The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their
rescuers, to Salt Lake – home at last, where they belonged.
Today, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are
not some government’s brothers and sisters – they are ours.
• to bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living,
• to bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life,
• and to welcome them and their children home to an America that
leaves no one behind.
I tried to take some comfort in knowing that my dad was doing exciting
things for the country as a key official in the Reagan Administration, which
(even as a ten-year-old) I understood would be historic.
I still remember when my dad was getting ready to make his first
appearance before the Supreme Court as President Reagan’s Solicitor
General. He readied his “morning suit,” the ceremonial uniform traditionally
worn by the Solicitor General in the Supreme Court; it consists of a long-
tailed coat and striped pants. While embarrassed at the mere thought of
my dad appearing in public dressed like that, I was intrigued by his new job
and wildly curious about what went on in the highest Court in the land.
The next time you place a call to the Reagan Ranch, you should hope to
be put on hold. If you are lucky enough to have that happen to you, you
will hear that confident cadence of courage in the voice of Ronald
Reagan. It is my hope that today and moving forward, those of us who
honor his legacy will not just talk about him, but listen to him, and do our
best to learn from and ultimately act like him.
It’s that part – Reagan’s enduring challenge to the movement and the party
and the nation he revived – that I’d like to discuss today.
As you know, this is the 33rd anniversary of President Reagan’s signing of
the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
Twenty million new jobs. A forty-nine-state landslide. “Tear down this wall.”
“Shining city on a hill.” Cadence and courage.
That’s the Reagan conservatives all remember and revere. But I submit
that is not the only Reagan conservatives need to study and emulate most
today.
The four-year stretch between 1976 and 1980 was a time similar to our
own. The unemployment rate was coming down, but still too high. The
economy was recovering, but not enough to restore broad prosperity.
Energy dysfunction, rising prices and an unfair tax system were eating up
what gains working families did see in their take-home pay.
It was in that time, in my view, that Reagan did perhaps the most important
work of his career.
Ronald Reagan in the late 1970s was a prominent figure, but not a
powerful one. He was no longer governor. His primary challenge against a
sitting president of his own party had failed, and made him a pariah among
a resentful Republican Establishment in Washington.
And the conservative movement he led was once again in the political
wilderness.
The situation was bleak. But, as always, where others saw obstacles,
Reagan saw opportunities.
He saw what too many in Washington did not: that a disconnect had
opened between the American people and their leaders. President Carter’s
approval rating fell into the 30s, and Congress’s into the 20s.
Reagan noticed that, aside from America’s political and economic elite, the
rest of the country suffered under increasingly liberal policies. The political,
corporate, and media opinion leaders were doing just fine. The people
shouldering the brunt of big government’s failure were the working men
and women of and aspiring to America’s middle class.
They were the ones whose neighborhoods saw rising crime rates. They
were the ones whose communities were threatened by family breakdown.
They were the ones whose jobs were hanging by a thread. They were the
ones whose children couldn’t to go to college, whose sons and brothers
came back from Vietnam only to be insulted by those they had fought to
protect.
They were the ones who couldn’t afford gas and groceries because of the
energy crisis and inflation.
Unlike the poor, who attracted Washington’s sympathy, and the rich, who
could influence public policy, the mass of Americans in the middle were
being ignored, slighted, and left behind by the political class in Washington.
The 19th century economist William Graham Sumner had a term for the
American caught in the middle: “the forgotten man.”
As Sumner put it in his famous essay of the same name:
It was these familiar friends and neighbors from all races and creeds and
regions - people all Americans know and most Americans are - that Ronald
Reagan believed made our nation good and great and beautiful. They were
the ones, Reagan understood, conservatism could help the most.
[QUOTE] “We represent the forgotten American-that simple soul who goes
to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids’ schooling,
contributes to his church and charity and knows there just ‘ain’t no such
thing as a free lunch.’” [UNQUOTE]
From the beginning, he built his politics around a profound respect for the
honest, hardworking men and women who made America work.
It’s just that by the late 1970s, the Democratic Party’s leadership in
Washington had gone Washington. The New Left did not oppose, but had
come to enjoy, the unfair privileges of concentrated power. The ruling class
in Washington not only ignored working families’ interests, but openly
disparaged their values.
Now, Reagan knew that while middle class Americans were disillusioned
with Washington Democrats, they were equally suspicious of Washington
Republicans—with good reason. Liberalism may have been failing, but to
many Americans in the late 1970s, conservatism was at best a cobwebbed
theory.
He knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren’t going to cut it.
Reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant.
The similarities between the late 1970s and today seem to grow by the
hour.
Now, as then, our economy is struggling. The great American middle class
is beset with anxiety. Stagnant wages don’t keep up with the rising cost of
living. For too many Americans, opportunities seem to be narrowing, and
the American Dream seems to be slipping out of reach.
Once again, the Left has betrayed the trust of the American people. But the
Right has not won it back.
A real conservative reform agenda has to do more than just cut big
government. It has to fix broken government. Reagan did just that a
generation ago. Since then, new challenges have emerged, demanding
repair – and conservative principles can once again point us toward
exciting, innovative solutions.
I find it interesting that most Americans feel forgotten, left out of the
debate, left behind in their efforts to get ahead, while shouldering the
burdens of failed policies, without a voice in what matters most. The ironic
part of having a podium and a microphone is that most Americans want
someone in Washington not to speak to them, but to listen to them. “Fix it,”
they say. “Turn it around,” they demand. “Will government ever work for
me, or will I always be working for it?”
Many tax-reform plans today ignore this problem, and would actually raise
taxes on working parents.
For single parents, this might as well be a “Keep Out” sign on the front
door of the middle class. It’s an unfair attack on individuals, families, and
neighborhoods – forcing them to make decisions based on what
government wants instead of what they want.
Conservative tax reform today needs to fix this unfair parent tax penalty, to
level the playing field for the hardworking families raising the next
generation of Americans.
New jobs come from new businesses. But all the taxes and regulations
government foists on the economy actually hurt newer, smaller businesses
and help large, politically connected corporations, which can afford all the
lawyers and lobbyists to comply with all the rules. People who fear that the
economy is rigged today are right. It is, and government rigs it.
Today, the exploding costs of and restricted access to college are leaving
millions of workers without the skills to succeed in the global economy.
Millions more are being saddled with more debt than they’ll ever be able to
repay.
And finally, this approach shows us that we can’t just cut Obamacare, or
even repeal it and go back to the old system we had before. Instead, we
need to move forward with real healthcare reforms that empower patients
and doctors, not big government and big insurance companies.
Under the radar of the mainstream media and Beltway politics, the
conservative reform agenda we need is starting to take shape.
As you can see, the content is different from Reagan’s agenda. But the
goal is the same – reforming outdated policies to put government back to
work for those forgotten Americans ... growing our economy and
strengthening our society... and finally bringing the American Dream back
into the reach of every American willing to work for it.
The people – not billionaires on Wall Street - are the customers who
decided which products and services and businesses would rise and fall.
The people – not the activists and academics and celebrities – decide the
values that guide our neighborhoods and define our culture.
His agenda was designed to give ordinary Americans even more power to
make those decisions. He respected them and trusted them, and thought
the government should simply get out of the way. He knew the answer
was not to get America to trust Washington; it was to get Washington to
trust America.
Reagan knew – and proved to a cynical elite – that freedom doesn’t mean
you’re on your own; it means we’re all in this together.
A renewed commitment to reform can not only put America on the path to
recovery, but reunite our nation after too many years of bitter division... and
empower our people after too many years of falling behind.
Ronald Reagan signaled the cadence of courage from this spot 33 years
ago. It still echoes from these hills. Today our duty is to answer the call.
We must dare to be better. Dare to look ahead past the next election, into
the next decade and beyond. Dare to make the changes today that will
shape the America of the future.
Uni
tedSt
atesSenat
or
Mi
keLe
e
The United States Senate
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
THE HONORABLE
Mike Lee, of Utah
113th Congress
January 03, 2014 to December 16, 2014
January 2015
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 12, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
I-1
Mike Lee, of Utah
OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to ensure that holders of flood insurance policies under the National Flood Insurance Program do
not receive premium refunds for coverage of second homes.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 13, 2014 Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
without amendment by Voice Vote.
Mar 13, 2014 Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Mar 13, 2014 Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 31, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 31, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
I-2
Mike Lee, of Utah
OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the authority of the National Labor Relations
Board with respect to rulemaking, issuance of complaints, and authority over unfair labor practices.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Sep 18, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Dec 08, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
I-3
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 4
Mike Lee, of Utah
Apr 07, 2014 Manchin, Alexander, Boozman, Blunt, Coats, Cochran, Cornyn, Crapo, Grassley,
Lee, McConnell, Roberts, Rubio, Sessions, Thune, Toomey, and Wicker
May 12, 2014 King
Nov 17, 2014 Heller
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 12, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
May 21, 2014 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Aug 26, 2014 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator
Carper under authority of the order of the Senate of 08/05/2014 with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 113-243.
Aug 26, 2014 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 531.
II - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 27, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
II - 6
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 7
Mike Lee, of Utah
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 14, 2014 Lee
May 15, 2014 Risch
May 20, 2014 Enzi, Inhofe, and Roberts
May 21, 2014 Scott
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 12, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
II - 8
Mike Lee, of Utah
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to expand and extend the program to improve permit coordination by the Bureau of Land
Management, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Barrasso, Heinrich, Hoeven, Enzi, Udall of Colorado, Heller, Walsh, Inhofe, and Heitkamp
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jun 10, 2014 Tester
Jun 16, 2014 Lee
Jun 18, 2014 Hatch
Jul 17, 2014 Bennet
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 05, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Jul 29, 2014 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
Sep 16, 2014 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous
Consent.
Sep 16, 2014 Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
Sep 16, 2014 S.Amdt. 3822 proposed by Senator Heitkamp for Senator Udall NM.
Sep 16, 2014 S.Amdt. 3822 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Sep 16, 2014 Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Sep 17, 2014 Message on Senate action sent to the House.
II - 9
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 10
Mike Lee, of Utah
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Blumenthal
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Sep 15, 2014 McConnell
Sep 16, 2014 Heller, and Inhofe
Sep 17, 2014 Alexander, Brown, Carper, Collins, Durbin, Franken, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Johnson
of South Dakota, Klobuchar, Murphy, Lee, and Blunt
Sep 18, 2014 Moran, Schatz, Schumer, Shaheen, Wyden, Feinstein, Menendez, Johanns,
Cochran, and Kaine
Nov 12, 2014 Warren, Isakson, Chambliss, Hatch, Markey, Crapo, Baldwin, Toomey, Stabenow,
Burr, and Roberts
Nov 13, 2014 Nelson
Nov 18, 2014 Ayotte, and Casey
STATUS ACTIONS:
Sep 09, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
II - 11
Mike Lee, of Utah
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A joint resolution to disapprove a rule of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to greenhouse gas
emissions from electric utility generating units.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Vitter, Moran, Scott, Hoeven, Portman, Thune, Paul, Hatch, Inhofe, Blunt, Barrasso, Enzi, Roberts,
Sessions, Isakson, Flake, Rubio, Johanns, Boozman, Fischer, Murkowski, Cornyn, Johnson of
Wisconsin, Risch, Burr, Shelby, Chambliss, Coburn, Grassley, McCain, Alexander, Crapo, Lee,
Coats, Toomey, Cochran, Cruz, Kirk, Wicker, Corker, and Graham
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jan 16, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
II - 12
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 13
Mike Lee, of Utah
Jun 12, 2014 McConnell, Boozman, Blunt, Wicker, Cruz, Coats, and Lee
Jun 16, 2014 Murkowski
Jun 17, 2014 Johanns
Jun 18, 2014 Scott
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 11, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
II - 14
Mike Lee, of Utah
Reid of Nevada, Alexander, Corker, Ayotte, Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Bennet, Blumenthal, Blunt,
Booker, Boozman, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Chambliss, Coats,
Coburn, Cochran, Collins, Coons, Cornyn, Crapo, Cruz, Donnelly, Durbin, Enzi, Feinstein, Fischer,
Flake, Franken, Gillibrand, Graham, Grassley, Hagan, Harkin, Hatch, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Heller,
Hirono, Hoeven, Inhofe, Isakson, Johanns, Johnson of Wisconsin, Johnson of South Dakota,
Kaine, King, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Lee, Levin, Manchin, Markey, McCain, McCaskill,
Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Moran, Murkowski, Murphy, Murray, Nelson, Paul, Portman, Pryor,
Reed of Rhode Island, Risch, Roberts, Rockefeller, Rubio, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, Scott,
Sessions, Shaheen, Shelby, Stabenow, Tester, Thune, Toomey, Udall of Colorado, Udall of New
Mexico, Vitter, Walsh, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wicker, and Wyden
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 26, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Jun 30, 2014 Message on Senate action sent to the House.
II - 15
Mike Lee, of Utah
Jul 17, 2014 Murray, Wyden, Enzi, Isakson, Reed of Rhode Island, and Merkley
Jul 21, 2014 McConnell
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 10, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Jul 16, 2014 Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Jul 16, 2014 Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Menendez without amendment
and with a preamble. Without written report.
Jul 16, 2014 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 469.
Jul 17, 2014 Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.
II - 16
Mike Lee, of Utah
II - 17
Mike Lee, of Utah
III - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 12, 2014 S.Amdt. 2821 proposed by Senator Burr for Senator Lee.
Mar 12, 2014 S.Amdt. 2821 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
III - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah
III - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 25, 2014 S.Amdt. 3380 proposed by Senator Lee to S.Amdt. 3378.
Jun 25, 2014 S.Amdt. 3380 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 58. Record Vote Number:
213.
III - 4
Mike Lee, of Utah
III - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
III - 6
Mike Lee, of Utah
IV - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Hatch and Lee
IV - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Feb 27, 2014 Johnson of Wisconsin
IV - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah
IV - 4
Mike Lee, of Utah
IV - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, Toomey, McCain, Lee, McConnell, and Coburn
IV - 6
Mike Lee, of Utah
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Udall of New Mexico, Paul, Whitehouse, Cruz, Coons, Collins, Franken, Roberts, Heinrich,
Enzi, Rockefeller, Kirk, and Klobuchar
IV - 7
Mike Lee, of Utah
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 29, 2014 McConnell
IV - 8
Mike Lee, of Utah
IV - 9
committe
e
assi
gnments
Uni
tedSt
atesSenat
or
Mi
keLe
e
2014 Annual Report- Judiciary
Committee
In his fourth year as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lee has
continued to establish himself as a legal expert and trusted partner in legislative efforts.
He has become a champion for states’ rights and constitutional limits on congressional
power, frequently inviting his colleagues to recognize when their legislative efforts
should be reined in.
Senator Lee worked closely with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve our
federal criminal justice system. The flagship piece of legislation is S. 1410, the Smarter
Sentencing Act, which would reduce the excessive mandatory sentencing provisions that
have resulted in a bloated federal prison population made up of nonviolent drug
offenders. Senator Lee also cosponsored S. 1675, the Recidivism Reduction and Public
Safety Act, which would increase opportunities and incentives for inmates to participate
in effective programming while serving their sentence. Both of these bills were
introduced with companion bills in the House of Representatives, and both bills were
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support.
With Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the committee, Senator Lee introduced
S. 1720, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act, which aims to reduce the
impact of so-called “patent trolls,” those who use the patent system to unfairly extract
licensing fees from innocent parties. By reducing the ability of these bad actors to abuse
the patent system, Senator Lee’s bill would protect small business owners and new
entrants to competitive markets.
Senator Lee was also an original co-sponsor of S. 517, the Unlocking Consumer Choice
and Wireless Competition Act, which permits owners of cell phones to unlock them for
use on other carriers. This bill passed the Senate and was signed into law in August.
In order to correct a poor interpretation of the law by the Department of Justice that
would allow internet gambling, Senator Lee joined with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
to introduce S. 2159, the Restoration of America’s Wire Act. This bill would prevent
states from allowing internet gambling, which might be accessible to those in Utah.
Finally, Senator Lee took an active role in responding to President Obama’s unilateral
actions on immigration. At a December hearing on the executive action, he posed
questions exposing how the President’s plan allows previously ineligible immigrants to
become citizens. He then took to the Senate floor to publicize these loopholes and
encourage the Senate to protect its constitutional authority to legislate on immigration.
Legislation
-Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder; January 29,
2014.
-
An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Market; February 26, 2014.
-Examining the Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger and the Impact on Consumers;
April 9, 2014.
-Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director James B. Comey;
May 21, 2014.
-Analyzing a Constitutional Amendment to Reduce Free Speech in America;
June 3, 2014.
-The AT&T/DirecTV Merger: The Impact on Competition and Consumers in the Video
Market and Beyond; June 24, 2014.
-Pricing Policies and Competition in the Contact Lens Industry: Is What You See What
You Get?; July 30, 2014.
-Why Net Neutrality Matters: Protecting Consumers and Competition;
September 17, 2014.
-The President’s Executive Action on Immigration; December 10, 2014.
Mar 13 2014
“The rules that apply to inspectors general in other federal agencies should
apply at the Department of Justice,” said Senator Lee, who sits on the
Senate Judiciary Committee. “Current law invites undue influence from the
Attorney General’s office into the process and should be changed to
ensure the integrity of investigations of misconduct within the Justice
Department.”
“Inspectors General are true watchdogs who save taxpayer dollars and
help deliver better services to Americans,” said Tester, Chairman of the
Senate subcommittee that oversees the federal workforce and federal
programs. “This bill is a common-sense measure that makes sure
taxpayers are getting the level of service they expect and increases
oversight of an agency that has enormous powers under the Patriot Act.”
“When Americans pledge to abide by ’Liberty and Justice for all,’ that does
not mean that those pursuing justice can creatively apply different
standards or break the rules to get convictions – it means everyone that in
America everyone is held equally accountable,” said Senator Lisa
Murkowski. “I’m proud to co-sponsor the Inspector General Empowerment
Act because it does just that: it gives the men and women charged with
judging the actions of attorneys the power to mete out justice within the
Justice Department.”
For example, a 2013 report from USA Today revealed that complaints from
two federal judges who said Justice Department lawyers had misled them
about the extent of the NSA surveillance program were never
investigated. Had the OIG been in charge, it could have investigated these
complaints without conflict of interest and the results of their report would
have been made available without requiring a Freedom of Information Act
request.
AT&T and DirecTV state that their merger will create a “competitive
alternative to cable for consumers wanting a better bundle of top-
quality broadband, video and mobile services, as well as a better
customer experience and enhanced innovation.” The companies
further state that increased scale will allow the merged entity to
realize cost synergies.
CBO is the second government agency to conclude that the Durbin-Lee bill
would produce billions of dollars in savings. The Department of Justice,
which administers our federal prison system, has estimated that the bill
would avoid prison costs of nearly $7.4 billion in 10 years and $24 billion in
20 years.
“Today’s CBO report proves that not only are mandatory minimum
sentences for non-violent drug offenses often unfair, they are also
fiscally irresponsible,” said Durbin. “By making the incremental,
targeted changes that Senator Lee and I have proposed in our
Smarter Sentencing Act, we can save taxpayers billions without
jeopardizing public safety. In fact, these aren’t just savings going
back to the treasury – this is money that will be invested in law
enforcement and crime prevention activities that will make our
communities safer.”
“Today’s CBO report is great news,” Lee said. “It confirms that
making smart reforms to our drug sentencing laws will save the
taxpayers billions of dollars. The targeted changes that Senator
Durbin and I have proposed to our harsh mandatory minimum
sentencing laws will strengthen our country by reuniting nonviolent
drug offenders who have paid their debt to society more quickly with
their families, and the CBO report shows that doing so will cost us
less in the long run.”
The United States has seen a 500% increase in the number of inmates in
federal custody over the last 30 years, in large part due to the increasing
number and length of certain federal mandatory sentences. Mandatory
sentences, particularly drug sentences, can force a judge to impose a one-
size-fits-all sentence without taking into account the details of an individual
case. Many of these sentences have disproportionately affected minority
populations and helped foster deep distrust of the criminal justice system.
This large increase in prison populations has also put a strain on our
prison infrastructure and federal budgets. The Bureau of Prisons is more
than 30% over capacity and this severe overcrowding puts inmates and
guards at risk. There is more than 50% overcrowding at high-security
facilities. This focus on incarceration is also diverting increasingly limited
funds from law enforcement and crime prevention to housing inmates. It
currently costs nearly $30,000 to house just one federal inmate for a year.
There are currently about 214,000 inmates in federal custody,
approximately half of them serving sentences for drug offenses.
In his second year on the committee, Senator Lee continued his work to maintain
a strong posture for the United States military while seeking to keep the United States
from foreign entanglements and campaigns in which our country has no security or
economic interests. A strong believer that the men and women of our armed forces, and
those working for the Department of Defense, must be provided with the best training,
equipment, and services for their families and communities, Senator Lee sought to help
the Department of Defense prioritize these missions while adjusting to the current budget
realities.
On both the Senate floor and in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator
Lee drew attention to the escalating U.S. involvement in the ongoing conflicts in Syria
and Iraq, which was largely done without Congressional authorization and little
Congressional involvement. Senator Lee believes that the United States should be very
cautious and measured in any use of military force, and that the President’s strategy for
addressing threats to the United States stemming from this conflict should be carefully
debated and authorized by Congress.
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2015: As a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Senator Lee participated in the May 2014 committee mark-up of the
defense policy bill and offered a series of amendments that were passed out of committee.
Senator Lee was unable to support the final policy bill passing out of the bill do to
ongoing concerns about language authorizing the arming and training of Syrian rebels.
-The Due Process Guarantee Act with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California).
This amendment was introduced in December 2014 to the NDAA on the Senate
floor and prohibits the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and legal residents.
The Senate Majority Leader blocked the amendment from receiving a vote.
-An Amendment to require the President to certify that European NATO allies
were taking measures to meet the defense spending goals set forth in the
September 2014 Wales Summit Declaration prior to the President using Overseas
Contingency (OCO) funds for operations in Europe. The Senate Majority Leader
blocked the amendment from receiving a vote.
-An amendment to the NDAA committee report stating that the Army National
Guard is the reserve component of the Army for combat and supporting arms and
the U.S. Army Reserve for Combat Support and Service Support. Amendment
was accepted in the Armed Services Committee.
-An amendment to the NDAA to prohibit the Department of Defense from using
funds for military training and exercises, data and intelligence sharing, or
negotiating new defense treaties with Russia or China if the President determines
that country is illegally occupying or instigating violence against or within
another State, or is not in compliance with existing bilateral or multinational
treaties or agreements with the United States. Some provisions of amendment
were included in the underlying bill that was passed out of the committee.
-An amendment to the NDAA to require the Comptroller General of the United
States to review all Department of Defense energy programs and report on the
costs and estimated and expected savings of each program. The report will
include an analysis comparing the lifecycle costs and accuracy of savings
predictions of renewable energy projects with conventional sources of energy.
Amendment was accepted in the Armed Services Committee.
-An amendment to the NDAA committee report stating that the Secretary of
Defense should continue to look at all potential sources of rocket engines for use
in medium and heavy space launch vehicles and provide a report on the potential
that non-liquid propulsion systems have to support the medium and heavy space
launch programs. Amendment was accepted in the Armed Services Committee.
-An amendment to require the Department of Defense to review all policies and
regulations regarding the acceptance and use of non-federal entity funding and
sponsorships in community outreach events and report on the feasibility of policy
changes that would allow for more community and non-government involvement
in sponsoring, supporting, and fundraising for such events. Amendment was
accepted in the Armed Services Committee.
Legislation
-S. 1919-A bill to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Original Co-sponsor)
-S. 2279-Stand with Israel Act of 2014 (Original Co-sponsor)
-S. 2295-National Commission on the Future of the Army Act of 2014 (Original
Cosponsor)
-S. Res 347-A resolution providing for completion of the accelerated transition of
United States combat and military and security operations to the Government of
Afghanistan (Cosponsor)
-S. Res 467-A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the May 31, 2014
transfer of five detainees from the detention facility at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Cosponsor)
-S. Res 498-A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United
States support for the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket
attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization (Cosponsor)
-S. Res 530-A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the current
situation in Iraq and the urgent need to protect religious minorities from
persecution from the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
(Cosponsor)
Veterans Affairs
In the midst of civil war and during a point of uncertainty for the United States,
Abraham Lincoln, the first republican president, said “…let us bind up the nation’s
wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle…” 2014 was a year in which the
Department of Veterans Affairs was rocked with scandal, turnover, and plagued with
problems. Despite all of this Senator Lee has continued to fight for our nations hero’s in
Washington, D.C.
In 2014 Senator Lee welcomed multiple Utah Honor flights, held a specific town
hall devoted to out military and veterans in Layton, and hosted an Intsagram entry form
to showcase the service of veterans in his DC office.
Senator Lee also fought to correct the VA scandals by cosponsoring legislation
that would have permitted the VA to cut much of the bureaucratic spending and
paperwork in order to provide our veterans with greater service and speed.
Feb 27 2014
I was there when the first F-35 was delivered to Hill Air Force Base, and I
am pleased that this funding has been approved and that the Air Force can
finally start construction on the F-35 maintenance hangar. The arrival of
the F-35 in Northern Utah next year begins a significant new chapter for
the Air Force and our state, and having the facilities ready for this delivery
is of upmost importance to protecting and maintaining the taxpayer's
investment in this weapons system. We are excited that the future of
military innovation and technological advancement is continuing to be
forged in our state.
May 28 2014
It is important that we all remember our Veterans that have served this
country and that we ensure they receive the awards and recognition that
they deserve. I salute the efforts made by these men, and I appreciate the
efforts of my staff to serve them.
May 28 2014
Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) passed its
annual authorization bill for the Department of Defense, which included a
provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide a broad
range of assistance, including lethal aid, to opposition forces in Syria.
“No, we cannot guarantee the assistance we provide doesn’t fall into the
wrong hands. Undoubtedly, some weapons and funds flowing into Syria
wind up in the hands of extremists such as Al Nusrah Front or the Islamic
State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL).”
On February 11, during a SASC hearing regarding the relationship of
moderate opposition and extremist groups in Syria, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper told Senator Lee:
The bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, was reported out of
committee by a vote of 25-1, with Senator Lee as the only “NO” vote due to
the Syrian provision, as well as other concerns.
Aug 14 2014
This event will provide a valuable opportunity for the military and veteran
community to meet Senator Lee and the members of his staff that advise
the senator on legislation related to the military and veterans. His staff that
helps veterans with federal casework will also be in attendance to offer
their services to veterans that need additional help working with federal
agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.
All are invited to attend, but for those who are unable to attend, Senator
Lee has made a form available on his website where constituents can
leave their feedback or questions for the Senator to address during the
town hall meeting. This form can be found here:
lee.senate.gov/UTVETMIL
Feb 11 2014
Sep 10 2014
May 08 2014
In their letter, the Caucus members call on the EPA to refrain from moving
forward with their controversial “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule that will
drastically expand federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.
The members also highlight how this rule will negatively impact farms,
small businesses, energy production, commercial development and
substantially interfere with the ability of individual landowners to use their
property.
“We urge you to change course by committing to operating under the limits
established by Congress, recognizing the states’ primary role in regulating
and protecting their streams, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of
water. We also again ask that you consider the economic impacts of your
policies knowing that your actions will have serious impacts on struggling
families, seniors, low-income households and small business
owners,”Caucus Members wrote.
We have reviewed the proposed rule that you signed on March 25th and
have concluded that the rule provides essentially no limit to CWA
jurisdiction. This is despite the Supreme Court consistently recognizing
that Congress limited the authority of the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers under the CWA.
The threat of ruinous penalties for alleged noncompliance with the CWA is
also likely to become more common given the proposed rule’s expansive
approach. For example, the EPA’s disputed classification of a small, local
creek as a “water of the United States” could cost as much as $187,500
per day in civil penalties for Wyoming resident Andrew Johnson. Similar
uncertainty established under the proposed rule will ensure that expanding
federal control over intrastate waters will substantially interfere with the
ability of individual landowners to use their property.
We fail to understand why the EPA has not adequately consulted our
Governors about a rule that has such a significant impact on the economy
of our states. For example, rural states in the West have sizeable ranching
and farming operations that will be seriously impacted by this rule. Despite
the claim that the Army Corps will exempt 53 farming practices as
established by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the list of 53
does not cover all existing agricultural practices. There are a number of
farming and ranching practices, such as the application of pesticides, that
are not covered on this list that occur every day in the West without
penalty. Under this new proposed rule, it appears those farmers and
ranchers will need to get a permit or be penalized if they continue to use
those non-covered practices in new federal waters.
Jun 11 2014
Along with five other Senators who signed the letter, Senator Lee
explained, “One of the greatest challenges facing our western forests is the
growing severity of the fire season. Extreme fire behavior has become the
new normal, due in no small part, to the mismanagement or lack of
management of our public lands. This mismanagement has resulted in the
loss of property, natural resources, wildlife habitat, as well as jobs and
economic opportunities in rural communities.”
The Senators urged the Committee to follow the lead of the House of
Representatives, which has “already approved legislation to restore active
forest management,” and act quickly on this urgent matter. “Given that this
fire season is off to an early and destructive start, it is critical that the
Committee hear from the land-management agencies and examine and
evaluate the agencies’ capacity to respond appropriately to wildfires,
reduce fire risk to communities, and improve forest, watershed, and
rangeland health.”
“The Davis-Bacon Act exemplifies how big government hurts the people it
purports to help, gives unfair advantages to favored special interests, and
squeezes the middle class,” said Sen. Lee. “It crowds out low-skilled
workers in the construction industry, preventing them from getting a fair
shot at a job, and funnels taxpayer money to prop up big labor unions,
which accrue windfall profits as Davis-Bacon removes the incentive for
federal contractors to hire unskilled, non-unionized workers.”
Joining Senator Lee in support of the “Davis-Bacon Repeal Act” are nine
cosponsors: Sens. Alexander (TN), Cruz (TX), Scott (SC), Sessions (AL),
Coburn (OK), Johnson (WI), Cornyn (TX), Rubio (FL), and Vitter (LA).
Jul 23 2014
“Nearly half the states are already taking steps to become more fiscally
independent in how they fund transportation projects,” said Sen. Lee. “This
legislation would make that process easier and empower all 50 states to be
more responsive to the needs of their citizens. The states already own and
maintain the roads. There is no good reason why they should have to
send their citizen’s infrastructure money to Washington first.”
The Transportation Empowerment Act phases down the federal gas tax
over five years from 18.4 cents per gallon to 3.7 cents and transfers
highway authority from the federal government to the states.
Lee’s plan would ignite a new era of infrastructure innovation and diversity.
Some communities could choose to build more roads, while others might
prefer to repair old ones. Some might build highways, others light-rail. And
all would be free to experiment with innovative green technologies, and
new ways to finance their projects, like congestion pricing and smart tolls.
For the country as a whole, this plan would mean a better infrastructure
system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism, and innovative
environmental protection.
Jan 16 2014
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The funding for PILT is offset by reductions of $421 million from the
following international climate change programs under the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act:
The CTF and the SCF are investment trust funds administered by the
multilateral development banks which finance low-carbon technologies and
climate-resilient development in foreign countries.
2014
Annual
Report
–
Economic
Policy
In
2014
Senator
Lee
continued
to
develop
and
pursue
an
economic
policy
agenda
focusing
on
eliminating
cronyism
at
the
top
of
the
economic
ladder
and
lack
of
opportunity
at
the
bottom,
both
of
which
are
exacerbated
by
distortions
to
the
free
market
created
by
the
federal
government.
Bills
During
the
113th
Congress:
S.
238
–
Federal
Reserve
Modernization
Act
The
Federal
Reserve
Modernization
Act
is
a
multi-‐faceted
bill
that
seeks
to
correct
many
of
the
problems
seen
in
the
Federal
Reserve
over
the
past
several
decades.
This
bill
creates
a
single
mandate
for
price
stability,
so
the
Federal
Reserve
has
the
single
priority
of
creating
a
stable
economy,
not
economic
engineering.
It
requires
that
the
Federal
Reserve
directly
state
its
Lender
of
Last
Resort
policy,
in
order
to
avoid
moral
hazard.
It
also
expands
the
voting
membership
of
the
Federal
Open
Market
Committee
to
better
reflect
the
views
of
many
regions
in
the
country.
The
bill
expedites
the
publishing
of
Federal
Reserve
transcripts
to
be
published
within
three
years.
The
Federal
Reserve
will
also
be
required
to
state
the
impacts
of
its
actions
on
exchange
rates
and
other
external
metrics
for
dollar
valuation.
The
Exchange
Stabilization
Fund
would
be
eliminated
and
replaced
with
a
Special
Drawing
Rights
Fund
with
limited
uses.
The
Federal
Reserve
would
be
limited
to
holding
Treasuries,
repos
and
reverse-‐repos,
except
during
emergencies.
Finally,
the
Consumer
Financial
Protection
Bureau
would
be
funded
through
regular
appropriations,
not
via
the
Federal
Reserve’s
funding.
S.
768
–
Sound
Money
Promotion
Act
The
Sound
Money
Promotion
Act
fixes
a
flaw
in
the
tax
code
that
treats
gold
and
silver
coins
used
for
currency
as
taxable
collectibles
rather
than
currency.
This
would
prevent
the
federal
government
from
levying
taxes
on
currency
that
is
legally
recognized
under
Utah
law.
This
bill
is
consistent
with
Utah
law
on
the
use
of
silver
and
gold
as
currency.
S.
1102
-‐
Export-‐Import
Bank
Termination
Act
The
Export-‐Import
Bank
Termination
Act
creates
a
system
for
winding
down
the
Export-‐Import
Bank
of
the
United
States.
The
Export-‐Import
Bank
exists
for
the
purpose
of
subsidizing
loans
to
foreign
firms
purchasing
exports
from
the
United
States.
However,
the
Export-‐Import
Bank
directs
most
of
its
subsidized
lending
at
a
handful
of
large
companies,
puts
taxpayers
on
the
hook
for
losses
the
bank
might
have,
and
even
puts
American
service
companies
at
a
disadvantage
relative
to
foreign
competitors
who
have
access
to
Export-‐Import
bank
lending,
while
domestic
firms
do
not.
The
bill
provides
a
glide-‐path
to
phase
out
this
agency.
S.
1616
–
Family
Fairness
and
Opportunity
Tax
Reform
Act
The
Family
Fairness
and
Opportunity
Tax
Reform
Act
broadly
simplifies
the
individual
income
tax
code
by
consolidating
tax
brackets,
eliminating
certain
deductions
while
making
them
available
to
all
taxpayers,
eliminating
the
marriage
penalty,
eliminating
the
alternative
minimum
tax,
and
creating
a
new
child
tax
credit
to
help
offset
the
parent
tax
penalty.
The
parent
tax
penalty
arises
from
the
double
contributions
parents
effectively
make
to
the
entitlement
system
with
no
financial
reward-‐
first
from
paying
their
payroll
taxes,
and
second
from
raising
children
who
will
go
on
to
pay
payroll
taxes
in
the
future.
S.1623
–
Working
Families
Flexibility
Act
of
2013
The
Working
Families
Flexibility
Act
would
provide
private-‐sector
workers
the
opportunity
to
establish
a
work
schedule
that
gives
them
more
flexibility
to
balance
their
time
between
their
jobs
and
their
families.
Under
current
law,
the
only
option
available
to
private-‐sector
employees
who
work
overtime
is
to
receive
monetary
compensation
at
1½
times
their
normal
pay.
In
1978,
Congress
provided
Federal,
State,
and
local
governments
the
ability
to
give
their
employees
a
choice
between
overtime
pay
or
paid
time
off
for
working
overtime
hours.
This
legal
disparity
unfairly
discriminates
against
private-‐sector
employees
and
impedes
those
employers
who
want
to
offer
their
employees
the
ability
to
accrue
extra
time
off
so
they
may
be
able
to
attend
their
children’s
sporting
events
or
musical
recitals,
to
care
for
a
sick
parent,
to
attend
a
lecture
for
personal
development,
etc.
The
bill
would
extend
the
compensatory
time-‐off
option
to
all
Americans
and
give
middle-‐
class
families
more
flexibility
in
their
day-‐to-‐day
life.
S.
2137
–
To
Ensure
Holders
of
Flood
Insurance
Policies
Under
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
Do
Not
Receive
Premium
Refunds
For
Coverage
of
Second
Homes
This
bill,
which
passed
the
United
States
Senate,
would
prevent
individuals
from
claiming
unexpected
refund
checks
for
premiums
paid
on
second
homes.
This
bill
passed
following
changes
to
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
that
made
such
excess
refunds
available.
S.2617
–
Davis-‐Bacon
Repeal
Act
The
Davis-‐Bacon
Act
is
an
80-‐year-‐old
wage
subsidy
law
requiring
all
federally-‐
funded
projects
worth
more
than
$2,000
to
pay
workers
the
“prevailing
wage,”
which
are
usually
the
inflated
union
wages
based
on
a
small
sample
size.
The
Davis-‐
Bacon
requirements
have
driven
up
federal
project
costs,
hinder
economic
growth,
waste
taxpayer
dollars,
unfairly
discriminate
against
non-‐organized
labor,
ignore
needed
skill
differences,
hurt
unskilled
workers,
and
impose
administrative
paperwork
burdens.
Therefore,
this
bill
would
simply
repeal
the
outdated
wage
law,
freeing
our
nation’s
infrastructure
projects
from
unnecessary
extra
costs.
S.2885
–
Protecting
American
Jobs
Act
The
Protecting
American
Jobs
Act
would
move
the
adjudicatory
functions
of
the
National
Labor
Relations
Board
(NLRB)
to
the
U.S.
Courts,
where
all
other
disputes
between
private
parties
are
heard.
Today,
the
NLRB’s
members,
who
are
short-‐term
political
appointees,
act
as
investigator,
prosecutor,
and
judge.
This
system
has
resulted
in
a
politically
charged,
lengthy
decision
process
that
has
prohibited
employers
from
making
business
decisions
that
would
otherwise
create
jobs.
This
bill
would
return
the
power
to
adjudicate
unfair
labor
practices
to
the
U.S.
judicial
system.
S.
2988
–
Regulatory
Cost
Assessment
Act
of
2014
This
bill
would
require
the
Congress
to
establish
a
regulatory
budget,
identifying
the
total
cost
of
economic
disruption
caused
by
federal
regulations
that
would
be
permitted
in
a
given
year.
The
bill
would
also
require
the
Congressional
Budget
Office
(CBO)
to
provide
a
score
of
the
regulatory
cost
impact
of
bills
under
consideration
in
the
United
States
Congress.
Parliamentary
constraints
would
be
placed
on
bills
in
violation
of
the
regulatory
budget.
Key
Joint
Economic
Committee
Hearings:
January
16–
“Income
Inequality
in
the
United
States”
Senator
Lee
questioned
the
witnesses
on
how
Utah’s
success
in
reducing
income
inequality
while
experience
high
growth
might
be
used
as
a
model
for
the
entire
United
States.
April
30
–
“The
First
Step
to
Cutting
Red
Tape,
Better
Analysis”
Senator
Lee
questioned
the
witnesses
about
how
to
better
conduct
analysis
of
regulatory
costs
and
how
to
improve
Congress’s
incentives
to
lower
the
costs
of
regulation.
June
18
–
“Empowerment
in
the
Workplace”
Senator
Lee
asked
questions
on
how
greater
flexibility
in
labor
regulations
would
increase
the
empowerment
of
many
workers,
including
parents
of
young
children.
Jan 09 2014
“The Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act would not only make
the cost of higher education more affordable, but also make it easier for
students to customize their own education and gain the specific skills they
need to compete in today’s economy,” said Sen. Lee. “Today’s higher
education system is falling behind on students’ increasingly diverse higher
education needs and the resistance to change stifles the emergence of
new education models than can be much more effective and affordable.
The HERO Act will open the floodgates of innovation, providing greater
choice, access, and opportunity for America’s students.”
The HERO Act does not replace the current accreditation system. It simply
permits states, if they choose, to set up their own systems to accredit
alternative institutions, programs, or courses. Because these new systems
would be eligible for federal dollars, each proposal would still have to gain
the approval of the Secretary of Education through an agreement with the
state.
“Our current higher education system is controlled by the iron triangle of
regional accreditation organizations, the schools and federal bureaucrats,”
Lee added. “The result is the exploding cost of higher education, which
either prevents students from getting the educational experience they need
or forces them to take on unnecessarily large amounts of debt. We can do
better by opening up new avenues of opportunity that make education
more affordable and accessible.”
More information:
Mar 12 2014
“The Utah Model might not work in every state, but every state should have
the freedom to solve problems their own way, according to their own
values and priorities,” Lee added.
How it Works:
What it Does:
“Americans aren’t looking for unemployment insurance, they are looking for
employment,” said Senator Lee. “The Democrats’ solution is to keep
people tied to unemployment programs, rather than addressing the
underlying problem. My amendment would lift unnecessary burdens
government imposes and give states and businesses the freedom to
invest, grow, and hire more workers.”
The third amendment is based on Sen. Lee’s Working Family Flexibility Act
(S. 1623), which allows private-sector employees the same choice
between comp time and overtime pay currently enjoyed by government
employees. Currently, federal law unfairly discriminates against these
employees by prohibiting the use of comp time, forcing them to sacrifice
family time for the family budget.
“For many families, especially with young children, their most precious
commodity is time,” said Sen. Lee. “But today, federal labor laws restrict
the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. This can
lead to tough decisions about how many hours parents can work, or even if
they’re able to work at all. My amendment would make that choice easier
and help working families achieve the right balance.”
Apr 08 2014
Votes on the Fair Pay Act are expected this week, but it is still unclear
whether or not Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow any Republican
amendments to be considered if the Senate does move to the bill. For
more than a year, Senator Reid has abused the amendment process to
prevent GOP priorities from receiving even a vote.
“For many families, especially with young children, their most precious
commodity is time,” said Senator Lee. “But today, federal labor laws
restrict the way moms and dads and everyone else can use their time. For
decades, Congress has given a special exemption from these laws to
government employees. This is unacceptable. The same work-life options
available to government employees should be available to private-sector
workers, as well.”
“We can’t legislate another hour in the day, but we can help working
people better balance the demands of family and work by removing an
unnecessary federal restriction on utilizing comp time in the private sector,”
Lee added.
May 01 2014
The “Energy Freedom & Economic Prosperity Act” has received support
from the American Energy Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, Americans
for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action, National Taxpayers
Union, 60 Plus Association, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Dec 11 2014
“Right now, the main reason our regulatory system is so onerous and
expensive,” Lee said, “is that regulations are issued by bureaucrats in the
executive branch who will never be held to account for their decisions by
the American people. This bill takes an important step toward solving that
problem by making Congress directly accountable for the regulatory costs
each federal agency can impose on the economy.”
Feb 12 2014
How it works:
Sep 24 2014
• Salam: “[Senators] Lee and Rubio have outlined a new tax proposal
that is a much bigger deal than it appears to be at first glance.”
(Reihan Salam, Op-Ed, “How Corporate Tax Reform Can Combat
Crony Capitalism,” NRO, 9/23/14)
• Salam: “[I]t is Lee and Rubio’s approach to overhauling corporate
taxes that deserves particularly close attention. … If Lee and Rubio
follow through on all of these steps, they will spark a revolution in the
way business is done in America.” (Reihan Salam, Op-Ed, “How
Corporate Tax Reform Can Combat Crony Capitalism,” NRO,
9/23/14)
• Salam: “In a few short months, these two lawmakers have gotten off
to an excellent start. If congressional Republicans are to ever
deserve the support of rank-and-file conservatives across the
country, they should follow Lee and Rubio’s lead.” (Reihan Salam,
Op-Ed, “How Corporate Tax Reform Can Combat Crony Capitalism,”
NRO, 9/23/14)
AEI’s James Pethokoukis: “Lee and Rubio offer smart, modern tax
reform” (James Pethokoukis, “Lee and Rubio offer smart, modern tax
reform,” AEI, 9/24/2014)
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR): “These tax proposals are a great
contribution to the current tax debate and anyone serious about tax
reform should support these measures.” (Jesus Rodriguez, “Rubio-Lee Tax
Reform Plan Good for Growth, Good for Families,” ATR, 9/23/14)
The Daily Caller: “Lee And Rubio Outline Ambitious Plan To Reform
Tax Code” (Rachel Stoltzfoos, “Lee And Rubio Outline Ambitious Plan To
Reform Tax Code,” The Daily Caller, 9/23/14)
Michael Medved: “I love your tax reform proposal. I think it’s just
what’s needed to maybe get us off the dime and get us moving in the
right direction.” (Michael Medved Interview with Senators Marco Rubio
and Mike Lee, “The Michael Medved Show,” YouTube, 9/23/2014)
consti
tuent
outreach
Uni
tedSt
atesSenat
or
Mi
keLe
e
Cons
tituentOutreach
201
4Stati
sti
cs
Mobi leOf fi
ce
89,
715
Tot
alNumberof Tot
alVisi
ts 96
ed 29
ResponsesWr
itt
en
Count
iesVisi
t
11,
500
499
Total
Aver
ageTele-townhal
l
At
tendees Const
it
uent
Meeti
ngs
1,
015 Casewor
k
BoyScout&
EagleScout alCasesOpened44
Tot 8
Lett
ersSent Tot
alCasesCl
osed 401
269,
062
T
otalMai
lRecei
ved
Jell
-O = 100
Ser
vings
Served 750T
otal
Hosted by Senator Lee in partnership with the Salt Lake Chamber and the Governor’s office, the Utah Solutions Summit provided a
venue for Utah business leaders and government officials to come together to discuss the vast and uncertain regulatory state under
which businesses are required to comply. The event was also an avenue to find solutions to government imposed burdens placed on
economic development. During this summit, in addition to providing information about the role of regulation and regulation
compliance through panel discussions, Senator Lee facilitated industry specific roundtable discussions. In these roundtables, industry
leaders discussed ways to alleviate the burdens these regulations have on their companies with a representative from Senator Lee’s
office, a representative from the Governor’s office, and others.
The summit began with an opening speech by Senator Lee followed by a keynote speech given by Senator Tom Coburn. Both speeches
focused on over-reach at the federal level. Senator Lee compared the federal government to a “helicopter parent,” with 80,000 pages of
new federal rules handed down in 2013.
After the opening speeches, there were two panel discussions; a local regulation panel consisting of city officials and business leaders,
and a state regulation panel consisting of economists, business leaders, and an agency director. These panelists examined and provided
insight regarding the relationship between regulation and economic development.
Lt. Governor Spencer Cox spoke to the group at lunch where he presented examples on how regulation negatively affects innovation in
the economy.
Roundtable Discussions
OFFICE
OF
SENATOR
MICHAEL
S.
LEE
NORTHERN
UTAH
REPORT
–
2014
Northern
Utah
Director:
Ryan
D.
Wilcox
324
25th
St.,
Suite
1410
Ogden,
Utah,
84401
(801)
392-‐9633
(office)
(801)
200-‐5595
(cell)
The
Northern
Utah
Office
has
recently
relocated
from
the
Salt
Lake
City
office
up
to
the
James
V.
Hansen
Federal
Building
in
Ogden,
Utah.
The
geographic
area
covered
by
this
office
includes:
Weber,
Davis,
Cache,
Summit,
Box
Elder,
Morgan,
Rich,
Tooele,
Daggett,
Uintah,
and
Duchesne
Counties.
National
defense,
economic
development,
water
and
resource
management,
transportation,
taxes,
federal
and
state
regulation,
federally
managed
lands,
energy,
education,
recreation
and
tourism
are
some
of
the
major
concerns
in
this
area
of
the
state.
PUBLIC
OUTREACH
AND
SERVICE
In
addition
to
meeting
with
constituents
in
the
office,
we
hold
regular
Mobile
Office
visits
and
constituent
outreach
throughout
the
state.
This
is
done
in
an
effort
to
reach
as
many
constituents
as
possible,
regardless
of
their
ability
to
travel
to
one
of
our
physical
locations.
Mobile
Office
visits
may
also
be
scheduled
upon
request.
Constituent
contact
is
the
top
priority
and
every
opportunity
to
engage
the
public
is
taken.
The
office
answers
calls,
greets
walk-‐ins,
handles
a
large
number
of
casework
requests
and
attends
a
wide
range
of
public
meetings.
The
office
regularly
attends
and
reports
at
public
meetings.
Monthly
coordination
meetings,
site
tours,
conferences,
training
and
briefings
are
held
in
various
cities,
with
a
wide
range
of
participants,
including
but
not
limited
to:
Congressional
representatives,
county
commissioners,
Associations
of
Government,
elected
city
and
Utah
State
officials,
Department
of
Defense,
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(DOI),
U.
S.
Forest
Service
(USDA),
National
Park
Service
(DOI),
Fire
Management,
BIA,
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Bureau
of
Reclamation,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
Tribal
Governments,
Security/Law
Enforcement,
Farm
Bureau,
Utah
Cattlemen,
Utah
Dairy
Producers,
Utah
Wool
Growers,
Sportsmen,
ATV
clubs,
students,
Chambers
of
Commerce,
and
various
National
Defense
Installations
and
partners.
PUBLIC
LAND
POLICY
MAJOR
ISSUES
OF
2014
Waters
of
the
U.S.:
There
is
concern
over
the
desire
of
the
Forest
Service
to
claim
ownership
of
the
waters
that
flow
through
F.S.
lands.
Utah
Test
&
Training
Range
Protection:
The
office
continues
to
work
with
the
U.S.
Air
Force,
counties
and
local
citizens
impacted
to
ensure
that
both
national
security
interests
and
land
users
are
protected
as
we
ensure
the
long-‐term
viability
of
this
essential
installation.
Public
Lands
Initiative:
The
office
has
taken
an
active
role
in
supporting
each
participating
counties
efforts
to
resolve
long-‐term
management
disputes
in
their
respective
jurisdictions.
We
will
continue
to
facilitate
negotiations
and
encourage
productive
dialogue
as
we
move
forward
with
a
long-‐term
solution
to
bring
certainty
for
the
future
of
public
lands
management
in
rural
Utah.
Endangered
Species
Act:
Forest
Service
attempted
to
control
the
listing
of
the
Greater
Sage
Grouse,
but
a
decision
to
not
list
the
grouse
brought
temporary
relief
to
many
of
the
affected
towns
and
counties.
Utah
Prairie
Dog:
Rural
Utah
County
Commissioners
are
working
to
complete
all
of
the
requirements
for
de-‐listing
as
soon
as
possible.
There
is
a
lack
of
trust
in
the
system
by
elected
officials.
Roads:
Road
closures
continue
to
plague
the
public
land
debate,
with
the
Forest
Service
and
BLM
seemingly
on
a
mission
to
eliminate
access
to
Utah’s
backcountry
at
any
cost.
From
the
RS2477
road
debate
to
denials
of
business
permits
within
the
“view
shed”
of
historic
trails,
access
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
a
serious
concern
for
many
citizens
into
the
future.
Cattle
Grazing
on
BLM
and
F.S.
Lands:
The
Utah
Association
of
Counties
Grazing
Sub-‐committee
has
taken
a
strong
position
in
support
of
grazing.
They
have
requested
letters
be
sent
to
the
national
FS
and
BLM
Directors
with
Congressional
signatures.
This
issue
is
a
top
priority.
Wild
Horses:
This
issue
has
not
been
adequately
resolved
and
will
rear
its
ugly
head
in
the
future.
Logic
and
reason
are
needed
to
provide
a
long-‐term
solution.
Wildfire:
Because
of
a
lack
of
adequate
management
by
federal
land
managers,
the
western
wild
fire
situation
continues
to
worsen.
Until
environmental
concerns
are
put
in
proper
priority
with
realities
on
the
ground,
this
problem
with
continue.
Politics
needs
to
be
taken
out
of
the
equation.
Conclusion
2014
was
filled
with
several
disconcerting
instances
of
federal
agency
overreach
detrimental
to
positive
growth,
economic
development
and
individual
liberty.
This
includes
federal
land
mismanagement,
and
at
times,
outright
hostile
actions
contrary
to
and
inconsistent
with
internal
policies
and
processes.
The
office
strives
to
gain
constituent
trust
and
provide
excellent
personal
service.
Mobile
office
visits
were
made
to
dozens
of
Northern
Utah
cities
and
towns,
to
better
provide
assess
to
the
Senator.
The
office
has
also
made
a
specific
effort
to
engage
with
the
youth
of
the
state,
regularly
visiting
classrooms
and
guest
lecturing
on
constitutional
roles
and
process.
This
outreach
focuses
on
engaging
students
in
discussions
and
providing
experiences
that
will
both
inspire
and
prepare
the
next
generation
to
lead.
While
2014
brought
serious
challenges;
we
have
also
seen
improved
prospects
for
long-‐term
solutions.
We
look
forward
to
seeing
those
through
in
2015.
OFFICE
OF
SENATOR
MICHAEL
S.
LEE
SOUTHERN
UTAH
REPORT
–
2014
Southern
Utah
Director:
Bette
O.
Arial
285
W
Tabernacle
St
George,
UT
84770
(435)
628-‐4277
(office)
(435)
971-‐7446
(cell)
The
Southern
Utah
Office
consists
of:
Bette
Arial,
Southern
Utah
Director/Natural
Resources
Policy
Advisor,
Jolie
Klawitter,
caseworker/office
manager,
an
intern
and
an
additional
summer
intern.
The
geographic
area
covered
by
this
office
includes:
Beaver,
Garfield,
Grand,
Iron,
Kane,
Millard,
Piute,
San
Juan,
Sevier,
Washington
and
Wayne
Counties.
Growth
(or
the
lack
of
growth),
water,
transportation,
taxes,
federal
and
state
regulation,
federally
managed
lands,
natural
resources,
energy,
endangered
species,
cattle
grazing,
and
RS2477
rights-‐of-‐way
are
some
of
the
major
concerns
of
the
citizens
in
this
area
of
the
state.
PUBLIC
OUTREACH
AND
SERVICE
Constituent
contact
is
the
top
priority
and
every
opportunity
to
engage
the
public
is
taken.
The
office
answers
calls,
greets
walk-‐ins,
handles
a
large
number
of
casework
requests
and
attends
a
wide
range
of
public
meetings.
Veterans
Affairs
casework
comprises
a
large
part
of
the
workload
due
to
the
fact
that
twenty
percent
of
Washington
County’s
population
is
made
up
of
veterans.
The
office
participated
in
the
“Honor
Flight”
trips
to
the
WWII
Memorial
in
Washington
D.C.
It
was
also
our
privilege
to
host,
in
the
Lee
office,
the
presentation
of
past
due
military
awards
to
deserving
veterans.
The
office
regularly
attends
and
reports
at
public
meetings.
Monthly
coordination
meetings,
site
tours,
conferences,
training
and
briefings
are
held
in
various
cities,
with
a
wide
range
of
participants,
including:
Congressional
representatives,
county
commissioners,
Associations
of
Government,
elected
city
and
Utah
State
officials,
Bureau
of
Land
Management
(DOI),
U.
S.
Forest
Service
(USDA),
National
Park
Service
(DOI),
Fire
Management,
BIA,
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Bureau
of
Reclamation,
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service,
Tribal
Governments,
Security/Law
Enforcement,
Farm
Bureau,
Utah
Cattlemen,
Utah
Dairy
Producers,
Utah
Wool
Growers,
Utah
Farmers
Union,
Egg
Producers,
ATV
clubs
and
Chambers
of
Commerce.
PUBLIC
LAND
POLICY
MAJOR
ISSUES
OF
2014
Waters
of
the
U.S.:
There
is
concern
over
the
desire
of
the
Forest
Service
to
claim
ownership
of
the
waters
that
flow
through
F.S.
lands.
Endangered
Species
Act:
Forest
Service
attempted
to
control
the
listing
of
the
Greater
Sage
Grouse,
but
a
decision
to
not
list
the
grouse
brought
relief
to
many
of
the
affected
towns
and
counties.
Utah
Prairie
Dog:
The
“soft
HCP”
in
affect
for
Iron
and
Garfield
Counties
is
functioning
with
county
commissioners
working
to
complete
all
of
the
requirements
for
de-‐listing
as
soon
as
possible.
There
is
a
lack
of
trust
in
the
system
by
elected
officials.
Washington
County
Habitat
Recovery
Plan:
The
Washington
County
Commission
is
concerned
about
the
renewal
of
the
plan
and
the
land
trade
required
by
the
original
HCP.
All
meetings
associated
with
the
HCP
are
attended
and
as
the
trade
progresses,
help
may
be
required
of
congress.
Cattle
Grazing
on
BLM
and
F.S.
Lands:
The
Utah
Association
of
Counties
Grazing
Sub-‐committee
and
the
Five
and
Six
County
Associations
of
Government
have
taken
strong
positions
in
support
of
grazing.
They
have
requested
letters
be
sent
to
the
national
FS
and
BLM
Directors
with
Congressional
signatures.
This
issue
is
a
top
priority.
Wild
horses:
This
issue
has
not
been
adequately
resolved
and
will
rear
its
ugly
head
in
the
future.
Logic
and
reason
are
needed
to
provide
a
long-‐term
solution.
Wildfire:
Because
of
a
lack
of
adequate
management
by
federal
land
managers,
the
western
wild
fire
situation
continues
to
worsen.
Until
environmental
concerns
are
put
in
proper
priority
with
realities
on
the
ground,
this
problem
with
continue.
Politics
needs
to
be
taken
out
of
the
equation.
Conclusion
2014
was
filled
with
potentially
lethal
land
issues.
First,
the
Cliven
Bundy
standoff
in
Nevada
sparked
an
organized
movement
in
Utah,
among
ranchers
and
elected
officials.
Next,
a
protest
ride,
by
hundreds
of
local
citizens,
down
Recapture
Canyon,
in
San
Juan
County,
ended
with
the
arrest
of
a
respected
county
commissioner.
The
office
strives
to
gain
constituent
trust
and
provide
excellent
personal
service.
Mobile
office
visits
were
made
to
fifteen
cities,
to
better
provide
assess
to
the
Senator.
The
office
has
active
involvement
with
Washington
County
Republican
and
Democrat
Women,
the
Cities
of
Cedar
City,
Kanab,
Richfield
and
St
George
(serving
on
the
boards
of
the
Dixie
Transportation
Council,
Dixie/Arizona
Strip
Interpretive
Association,
Dixie
Center
Inter-‐local
Agreement,
Washington
County
Solid
and
Hazardous
Waste,
St
George
Arts
Commission,
St
George
Art
Museum,
Children’s
Museum
and
Art
Around
the
Corner).
This
was
a
great
year
with
some
serious
challenges,
that
will
carry-‐over
to
2015.
Office
of
Senator
Mike
Lee
2014
Central
Utah
and
Mobile
Office
Report
Central
Utah
Director:
Robert
Axson
125
South
State
Street
STE
4225
Salt
Lake
City,
UT
84138
(801)
524-‐5933
office
rob_axson@lee.senate.gov
Mobile
Office:
Once
again,
Senator
Lee
has
directed
his
staff
to
make
constituent
service
and
outreach
a
priority.
Throughout
Senator
Lee’s
term
of
service
to
the
state,
the
interactions
with
Utahns
to
discuss
issues
faced
each
and
every
day
have
been
the
best
means
for
the
Senator
to
develop
legislative
proposals
meant
to
increase
economic
mobility
and
opportunity.
As
we
meet
with
Utahns
of
all
backgrounds,
ages,
and
perspectives,
dialogue
concerning
the
challenges
facing
Utah
families
and
individuals
have
provided
Senator
Lee
with
the
insight
and
perspective
necessary
to
continue
to
develop
his
Reform
Agenda—promoting
economic
growth
for
Utah’s
citizens.
Adding
to
the
tally
of
thousands
of
visits
with
Utahns,
Senator
Mike
Lee’s
mobile
office
was
able
to
meet
with
hundreds
of
Utahns
throughout
the
state
during
2014.
Mobile
office
visits
where
held
in
27
of
Utah’s
29
counties
where
we
were
able
to
host
office
hours
on
over
95
occasions
and
in
64
unique
locations.
Senator
Lee
has
said:
“I
want
my
office
to
be
open
and
available
to
Utahns.
The
best
way
to
achieve
that
is
by
going
directly
to
them.
Utahns
deal
with
a
range
of
federal
issues
–
from
Social
Security
to
veterans
benefits
to
navigating
the
bureaucracy
of
the
federal
government
–
and
I
want
to
be
there
to
help
them
get
answers.”
The
mobile
office
helps
Senator
Lee,
and
his
staff,
reach
neighbors,
veterans,
students,
and
other
Utahns
who
might
not
otherwise
be
able
to
meet
with
casework
officers
or
other
staff
in
the
Senator’s
regular
State
offices
in
Salt
Lake
City,
Ogden,
or
St.
George.
The
mobile
office
travels
throughout
the
state
of
Utah
and
opens
a
temporary
U.S.
Senate
staff
office,
on
behalf
of
Senator
Lee,
in
all
of
Utah’s
counties
–
generally
conducting
office
hours
in
the
morning
and
in
the
afternoon
at
pre-‐
arranged
and
pre-‐advertised
locations.
(In
2014,
the
locations
of
visits
have
included,
among
others:
city
halls,
community
libraries,
college
and
university
campuses,
businesses,
veterans’
centers,
and
senior
centers.)
Mobile
office
hours,
dates,
and
event
locations
are
regularly
updated
and
available
for
public
notice
at
http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/mobile-‐office.
Additionally,
Utah
residents
may
use
the
website
to
request
a
specific
visit
from
the
mobile
office,
recommend
a
location
for
a
future
visit,
and
invite
the
mobile
office
for
an
educational
presentation
on
the
U.S.
Constitution
and
the
process
of
the
federal
government.
In
recognition
of
the
important
relationship
between
the
government
of
the
State
of
Utah
and
its
elected
federal
representative,
Senator
Lee’s
mobile
office
continued
the
tradition
of
hosting
mobile
office
hours
at
the
Utah
Capitol
during
the
state
legislative
session.
The
mobile
office
greeted,
assisted
and
took
comments
from
state
legislators,
employees,
and
other
capitol
visitors
throughout
the
session.
Even
though
Senator
Lee's
Washington
D.C.
office
is
over
2000
miles
away
and
you
may
have
to
drive
on
I-‐15
for
hours
to
get
to
his
Salt
Lake
City,
Ogden,
or
St.
George
offices,
his
mobile
office
visits
are
often
as
close
as
your
local
city
hall
or
library.
When
Utahns
are
unable
to
travel
to
Senator
Lee,
he
and
his
staff
will
continue
to
work
hard
on
going
to
them.
Outreach:
As
the
Central
Utah
Director,
I
have
focused
my
outreach,
visits,
and
conversations
with
constituents,
elected
officials,
students,
businesses,
and
activists
in
the
middle
part
of
our
state
(Carbon,
Duchesne,
Emery,
Juab,
Salt
Lake,
Sanpete,
Uintah,
Utah,
and
Wasatch
counties).
Whether
visiting
with
folks
in
the
along
the
Wasatch
Front
or
visiting
the
Ute
Tribe
in
the
Basin
or
Partoun
in
the
West
Desert,
Utah
is
filled
with
wonderful
and
diverse
people
who
want
to
raise
their
families
in
a
State
with
economic
opportunities,
recreation,
freedom,
and
community.
We
continued
to
promote
these
four
pillars
throughout
Utah
in
2014.
Regular
meetings
with
various
Associations
of
Government,
Chambers
of
Commerce,
nonprofit
organizations,
service
organizations,
and
businesses
introduced
important
perspectives
and
ideas.
Senator
Lee
firmly
believes
that
the
answers
to
the
challenges
facing
our
country
will
be
found
in
the
minds
and
lives
of
those
most
affected—her
citizens.
Better
than
D.C.,
rural
and
urban
Utah
is
where
the
entrepreneurs
of
ideas
live.
It
is
a
pleasure
to
meet
on
a
daily
basis
with
those
who—like
me—are
proud
to
call
Utah
home
and
to
facilitate
dialogue
with
Senator
Lee
who
is
committed
to
standing
for
Utah
and
with
Utahns.
Casework
Director
Jessica
Christopher
124
South
State
Street,
Suite
4225
Salt
Lake
City,
UT
84138
801-‐524-‐5933
Jessica_Christopher@lee.senate.gov
Casework
in
Utah
Senator
Lee
has
the
opportunity
to
assist
Utahns,
businesses,
and
local
governments
in
their
daily
interactions
with
the
federal
government.
Many
of
the
federal
agencies
we
work
with
include
the
Departments
of
Veterans
Affairs,
Interior,
Transportation,
Heath
and
Human
Services,
and
Housing
and
Urban
Development.
We
also
work
with
the
Internal
Revenue
Service,
Social
Security
Administration,
and
Passport
Agency.
Specially
trained
staff
in
Salt
Lake
City
and
St.
George
work
daily
to
assist
Utahns
when
they
encounter
problems
with
federal
agencies
or
federally
funded
programs.
Utahns
may
call,
email,
or
visit
one
of
Senator
Lee’s
offices
to
request
assistance.
The
casework
staff
will
then
work
with
the
constituent
to
gather
the
necessary
information
needed
to
make
an
agency
inquiry.
Constituents
are
often
referred
to
Senator
Lee
for
federal
casework
assistance
from
Governor
Herbert’s
office,
many
Utah
State
legislators,
and
local
businesses
and
nonprofit
organizations.
The
casework
staff
look
for
opportunities
in
the
community
to
interact
with
individuals
and
organizations.
Often
we
are
called
upon
to
explain
how
Senator
Lee
can
be
of
assistance,
but
we
also
take
advantage
of
the
time
to
learn
about
the
many
ways
Utahns
find
unique
solutions
to
issues
facing
their
local
communities.
2014
Casework
Cases
Opened:
448
Cases
Closed:
401
Examples
of
casework
in
2014
include:
• An
Iraqi
War
veteran
contacted
Senator
Lee
for
assistance
with
her
VA
disability
claim
that
had
been
ongoing,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
since
2012.
She
was
exposed
to
chemicals
while
cleaning
weapons
during
her
service
that
caused
a
cancerous
tumor
in
her
brain.
After
several
surgeries
she
was
told
the
doctors
could
no
longer
help
her.
Unfortunately,
she
then
developed
breast
cancer.
She
was
understandably
frustrated
and
needed
help.
Working
with
contacts
within
the
VA
over
several
months,
Senator
Lee
and
the
caseworker
were
able
to
tell
her
she
had
been
approved
for
disability.
In
addition
to
her
monthly
payment,
she
was
awarded
retroactive
payments
going
back
several
years.
With
this
problem
out
of
the
way,
she
can
put
her
full
focus
and
energy
back
into
fighting
the
cancer.
• A
Utah
business
contacted
Senator
Lee
after
not
being
paid
for
multiple
jobs
undertaken
on
behalf
of
the
federal
government.
The
company
was
in
financial
trouble
because
of
the
large
expenditures
made
to
complete
the
projects.
After
making
an
inquiry,
Senator
Lee
and
the
casework
staff
learned
there
was
a
disagreement
on
whether
all
of
the
jobs
associated
with
the
contract
were
completed
according
the
terms
of
the
contract.
After
repeated
communication
between
Senator
Lee’s
office,
the
agency,
and
the
Utah
business,
it
was
agreed
the
disputed
parts
of
the
contact
would
be
reviewed
at
a
later
time,
but
payment
would
be
authorized
immediately
for
the
remaining
portions
of
the
contract.
• Casework
contacts
within
several
agencies
were
utilized
to
help
a
local
woman
deal
with
a
Medicare
issue.
She
had
been
overpaid
for
a
service
and
needed
to
return
the
money
to
Medicare.
Confusion
was
caused
when
she
delayed
returning
the
money
causing
Medicare
to
arrange
to
have
money
taken
from
her
monthly
Social
Security
check.
Shortly
before
her
first
garnished
monthly
check
arrived,
she
mailed
the
full
amount
to
Medicare.
For
months
a
portion
of
her
check
continued
to
be
garnished.
One
of
Senator
Lee’s
Salt
Lake
City
caseworkers
coordinated
communication
between
the
Centers
for
Medicare
and
Medicaid
Services,
the
Social
Security
Administration,
and
the
Department
of
the
Treasury
to
acknowledge
the
debt
had
been
fully
paid
and
helped
organize
the
needed
reimbursement.
• Most
people
know
exactly
what
they
are
going
to
do
with
their
IRS
tax
refunds,
but
one
Salt
Lake
County
man’s
refund
was
delayed
without
an
explanation.
He
contacted
the
IRS
on
multiple
occasions
over
several
months,
but
was
told
it
would
be
coming
and
to
have
patience.
Needing
the
money,
he
contacted
Senator
Lee
to
ask
for
assistance.
A
caseworker
from
the
office
contacted
the
Taxpayer
Advocate
and
requested
they
review
the
taxpayer’s
records
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
delay.
The
Taxpayer
Advocate
found
there
was
an
input
error
on
the
record.
Within
weeks
the
hold
was
lifted
and
the
refund
was
paid
-‐
with
an
additional,
unexpected
amount
for
interest.
• Each
year
Senator
Lee
is
contacted
by
Utah
veterans,
or
their
families,
requesting
assistance
in
obtaining
military
medals.
Sometimes
it
is
clear
in
the
military
records
the
medals
were
indeed
earned,
but
never
awarded
and
other
times
the
veterans
have
to
provide
evidence
the
medals
were
earned.
This
was
true
for
the
daughter
of
Mr.
Trujillo.
She
believed
her
late
father
earned
the
Purple
Heart.
With
Senator
Lee’s
help
she
requested
his
military
and
medical
service
files.
She
reviewed
the
files
for
the
evidence
of
the
wounds
he
received
in
action.
A
caseworker
helped
her
forward
the
necessary
documents
to
the
Army
where
the
review
board
quickly
determined
he
had
earned
the
Purple
Heart.
Senator
Lee
was
able
to
honor
Mr.
Trujillo
and
host
the
award
ceremony
where
the
Purple
Heart
was
presented
to
his
family.
U.S.
Service
Academy
Nominations
Senator
Lee
has
the
honor
to
nominate
outstanding
young
Utahns
to
our
nation’s
military
academies:
Air
Force
Academy,
Naval
Academy,
Military
Academy
at
West
Point,
and
Merchant
Marine
Academy.
The
Coast
Guard
Academy
does
not
require
a
congressional
nomination.
Senator
Lee
looks
for
applicants
who
can
demonstrate
they
have
a
desire
to
serve
and
be
a
leader
in
the
U.S.
Armed
Forces.
Successful
applicants
show
they
can
handle
the
rigorous
academic
and
physical
requirements
of
the
academies
while
maintaining
involvement
and
interest
in
their
local
communities.
The
2014
nomination
process
concluded
in
May
2014
when
Senator
Lee
invited
all
of
the
appointed
candidates
and
their
parents
to
dinner
before
they
entered
the
academies.
This
opportunity
to
interact
with
these
dedicated
young
people
who
have
committed
themselves
to
military
service
is
an
annual
highlight.
The
2015
application
process
opened
in
April
2014.
Senator
Lee
utilizes
his
website
at
lee.senate.gov
to
provide
information
to
interested
applicants.
The
Salt
Lake
City
staff
is
available
to
answer
questions
about
the
current
application
cycle
or
for
those
interested
in
a
future
nomination.
2014
Appointments
Air
Force
Academy
Naval
Academy
-‐Jillian
Combs
-‐Dexter
Clark
-‐Zerek
Olson
Military
Academy
at
West
Point
-‐Seth
White
-‐Amy
Johnston
-‐Kevin
Yeh
-‐Carson
Nuttall
2015
Academy
Nominations
Application
Available:
April
10,
2014
–
October
24,
2014
Total
Applicants:
78
Academy
Interviews:
Tuesday,
November
18,
2014
(7:40
am
–
12:20
pm)
Lee
Staff:
16
Academy
Liaisons:
11
Total
number
of
interviews:
140
Air
Force
Academy:
45
Military
Academy:
32
Merchant
Marine
Academy:
15
Naval
Academy:
48
Total
applicants
nominated
by
Senator
Lee:
55
Total
number
of
Senator
Lee’s
applicants
nominated
from
any
source:
76
The
final
2015
academy
appointments
will
be
determined
during
the
first
quarter
of
2015.
Sample
Correspondence
Senator
Lee,
As
a
voter
in
your
district,
I
wanted
to
express
my
concern
to
you
regarding
Barack
Obama's
constant
attempt
to
disarm
American
citizens.
Even
more
disconcerting
is
the
fact
that
the
president
and
his
administration
believe
that
they
can
exert
dictatorial
power,
circumventing
Congress
to
attack
our
Second
Amendment
rights.
We
cannot
allow
the
government
to
disarm
us.
Our
Second
Amendment
rights
are
our
last
protection
against
a
tyrannical
government.
There
are
some
that
want
to
incredulously
ask
if
we
truly
believe
the
government
is
one
of
tyrants.
The
fact
that
we
are
even
having
that
discussion
is
proof
positive
that
it
is!
Obama
is
demonstrating
yet
again
that
he
perceives
himself
to
be
a
dictator
to
servants,
not
a
leader
of
free
people.
A
free
people
are
not
told
what
guns
they
can
and
cannot
own.
A
free
people
are
not
guilted
into
giving
up
their
guns.
A
free
people
are
not
made
to
feel
like
criminals
for
simply
standing
up
for
their
Second
Amendment
right
to
bear
arms.
If
you
don't
stand
up
to
Obama
now,
then
what
constitutionally
protected
right
will
be
next
on
his
target
list?
Please,
do
not
allow
the
far
left,
radical
progressives
to
use
us
to
advance
their
freedom
busting
agenda
of
disarming
the
populace
while
taking
greater
and
greater
control
of
our
lives.
I
am
counting
on
you
to
stand
up
to
them.
Clark
W
Venice
UT
Hello,
I
am
currently
serving
as
the
public
policy
chair
for
the
Utah
Association
of
Young
Children
(UAEYC).
Recently,
some
of
our
UAEYC
board
members
spoke
with
Jordan
Hess
of
your
staff
about
the
upcoming
proposal
to
distribute
CCDBG
funds
to
states
to
administer
rather
than
having
the
distribution
dictated
by
the
federal
government.
One
of
the
concerns
that
many
early
childhood
educators
have
had
has
been
that
it
is
hard
to
ensure
that
CCDBG
funds
are
used
to
promote
education
quality
if
they
are
governed
centrally
rather
than
on
the
state
level.
As
such,
I
wanted
to
find
out
more
information
about
the
proposal
Jordan
Hess
discussed
with
our
board
members
(George
Garff
and
Harley
Boyles)
because
this
proposal
may
be
something
that
we
at
the
UAEYC
as
well
as
the
National
Association
for
the
Education
for
Young
Children
might
want
to
help
support.
Please
let
me
know
any
information
possible
about
the
proposal
to
shift
administration
of
CCDBG
funds
for
early
education
to
states
so
the
UAEYC
board
can
discuss
the
proposal
when
we
next
meet.
Thank
you,
Jared
L
Salt
Lake
City
Senator
Lee:
Thank
you
for
your
continued
support
of
the
National
Guard's
460,000
members.
I
am
writing
to
draw
your
attention
to
a
serious
matter
affecting
the
operational
capabilities
and
readiness
of
Army
National
Guard
forces.
On
April
18,
the
Army
Legislative
Liaison
Office
advised
all
House
and
Senate
offices
of
a
change
in
policy
regarding
overseas
deployments
of
the
Army
National
Guard
and
the
Army
Reserve
that
is
set
to
begin
in
fiscal
2014.
Under
the
guise
of
cost
savings,
the
Army
could
cancel
some
or
all
such
deployments
for
the
Army
National
Guard.
This
includes
rotational
missions
in
Afghanistan,
along
with
historically
Guard
missions
in
Kosovo,
the
Sinai
and
the
Horn
of
Africa.
This
is
no
small
change.
Over
the
past
decade,
the
National
Guard
has
deployed
more
than
750,000
individuals
in
support
of
contingency
operations.
This
proposal
runs
counter
to
the
Army's
rhetoric
of
keeping
the
Guard
and
Reserve
operational
and
represents
the
first
major
step
toward
returning
the
reserve
components
to
strategic
reserves.
The
Army
Guard
of
2013
is
the
best-‐manned,
best-‐trained,
best-‐equipped
and
most
experienced
force
in
its
long
history.
This
is
a
direct
result
of
the
resourcing
and
legal
authorities
that
Congress
has
provided
the
Guard
since
9/11.
Ceasing
overseas
deployments
of
Guard
troops
will
diminish
the
great
investment
Congress
has
made
in
the
Guard
since
the
beginning
of
the
war
on
terrorism.
The
high
level
of
readiness
will
atrophy,
training
opportunities
will
dwindle,
and
resourcing
the
Guard
with
new
equipment
will
no
longer
be
a
priority.
These
steps
will
return
the
Guard
to
its
pre-‐9/11
state.
If
the
point
is
to
save
money,
it
should
be
noted
that
a
National
Guard
member
costs
about
one-‐third
of
an
active-‐component
counterpart,
and
nearly
$2.6
billion
could
be
saved
for
every
10,000
positions
shifted
from
the
full-‐time
active
Army
to
the
part-‐time
Army
Guard.
Congress
should
ensure
that
this
plan
is
reversed.
It
takes
only
a
continued
modest
investment
to
maintain
an
operational
force
when
compared
to
the
cost
of
ramping
up
again
if
the
Army
successfully
transforms
the
Army
Guard
back
into
a
strategic
force.
Please
guarantee
that
the
Army
National
Guard
continues
to
deploy
regularly
as
part
of
the
Army's
operational
force.
Sincerely,
Carl
S
Taylorsville
Hello
Senator
Mike
Lee,
Our
name's
our
Tayven,
Robert,
and
Eric.
We
are
students
at
Realms
of
Inquiry,
a
private
school
in
Murray.
Right
now,
we
are
taking
a
U.S.
government
class
that
is
focusing
on
major
issues
and
what
we
can
do
to
help.
Our
group
decided
to
look
into
the
money
spent
on
incarceration
and
how
to
effectively
change
the
prison
systems
to
benefit
us.
In
our
research,
we
stumbled
across
an
article
about
how
you
are
trying
to
pass
a
prison
reform
bill.
Upon
reading,
we
found
that
the
details
were
exactly
what
we
had
been
thinking
would
be
a
good
idea.
We
agree
that
sentencing
should
be
shorter
or
non-‐existent
for
smaller
crimes
such
as
drug
possession
or
like
things,
so
that
we
can
spend
money
and
prison
space
on
what
really
counts,
like
big
time
crimes
such
as
murder,
rape,
ect.
We
also
think
it's
great
that
you're
addressing
the
problem
that
something
needs
to
be
done
about
the
average
40%
over
capacity
in
federal
prisons.
If
at
all
possible,
it
would
be
amazing
to
set
up
a
time
where
we
could
meet
with
you,
and
discuss
solutions
to
the
issue,
and
what
we
can
do
to
help.
It'd
also
be
interesting
to
find
out
how
the
three
branches
of
government
would
work
to
solve
this
problem,
and
what
you
do
on
a
daily
basis.
Really,
anything
helps.
Let
us
know
what
you
think,
we
look
forward
to
hearing
back
from
you.:)
Thanks
so
much.
Tayven
G
Bountiful
Senator,
I'm
18
years
old,
trying
to
get
myself
into
college,
and
working
two
jobs
at
the
moment.
I
work
for
an
SEO
company
and
as
a
feature
writer
for
the
Utah
Jazz.
I'm
busy
all
the
time
but
I
listen
to
talk
radio
in
the
office,
and
I'm
probably
more
well-‐informed
about
politics
than
any
other
18
year
old
I
know.
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
second
and
let
you
know
that
I
really
appreciate
what
you're
doing
in
Congress
for
us,
and
people
like
me.
You
stood
with
Senator
Ted
Cruz
on
the
filibuster,
have
opposed
Obamacare,
and
you
seem
to
have
the
interests
of
Utahns
at
heart,
and
not
your
own
agenda.
And
I
read
through
your
proposal
for
higher
education
reform,
and
I
thought
there
was
a
lot
of
merit
to
it.
I'd
love
to
see
that
move
forward.
But
anyways,
the
whole
purpose
of
this
was
to
just
let
you
know
that
I
appreciate
the
job
you're
doing
and
it
means
a
lot
to
know
that
one
of
the
few
decent
politicians
who
are
actually
in
Washington
for
the
people,
and
not
themselves,
is
from
Utah.
Thanks
for
everything
you
do,
senator.
Best,
Spencer
D
Santaquin,
UT
Senator,
Please
continue
to
fight
to
decrease
the
overexpansion
of
government
and
high
tax
rates
we
as
Citizens
of
the
US
have
been
burdened
with
over
the
past
decades.
The
fact
that
many
of
us
are
paying
well
over
1/3
of
our
income
to
the
federal
government
in
taxes
needs
to
be
addressed.
Even
with
such
a
high
tax
burden
the
never
ending
spending
of
our
government
exceeds
its
revenue.
Please
fight
to
keep
the
government
shut
down
and
not
increase
the
debt
ceiling.
As
a
person
I
make
a
habit
of
not
borrowing
money
and
definitely
not
spending
or
committing
more
resources
than
I
have
available.
The
federal
government
should
do
the
same.
We
are
in
this
mess
because
we
have
continued
down
a
road
of
unprecedented
spending
on
services
not
needed
and
social
benefits
that
only
enable
those
not
willing
to
do
their
share.
It
is
time
we
make
a
stance
and
force
massive
cuts
that
bring
this
spending
in
line.
I
realize
this
may
shake
the
markets
but
we
can
deal
with
this
problem
now
or
even
a
bigger
problem
in
the
future.
At
some
point
this
issue
will
arise
again.
Let's
not
put
off
today
what
we
will
have
to
address
sooner
or
later.
We
all
know
that
not
increasing
the
debt
limit
does
not
mean
a
default
of
government
loans.
Those
loans
by
law
must
be
paid.
Yes
it
will
force
the
Senate
to
finally
pass
a
budget.
A
budget
that
will
meet
the
current
income
level
of
the
government
without
increasing
the
debt
ceiling.
Then
the
House
can
begin
to
make
spending
decisions
on
what
programs
will
we
kept
and
what
unnecessary
programs
will
be
abandoned
or
possibly
turned
over
to
the
states
or
private
industry.
Yes
some
programs
will
succeed
and
some
will
fail.
In
the
future
we
can
continue
to
fight
do
decrease
federal
spending
and
federal
programs.
Thanks
for
all
your
hard
work
and
dedication
to
this
country.
Let's
make
it
great
once
again.
Brett
B
Mantua,
UT
Senator
Lee,
I’m
disappointed
that
policymakers
in
Washington
continue
to
meddle
in
the
economy
and
America_s
energy
markets,
using
taxpayer
dollars
to
prop
up
its
favorite
companies.
I
strongly
encourage
you
to
oppose
extending
the
wind
Production
Tax
Credit
(PTC).
We
should
be
ending
subsidies
that
distort
the
energy
market,
not
extending
them
indefinitely.
I
stand
with
my
fellow
Americans
for
Prosperity
activists
to
oppose
the
continued
use
of
the
tax
code
for
government
engineering
of
the
economy.
Please
stand
up
for
a
free-‐market
energy
policy
and
end
the
wind
PTC.
Sincerely,
Debra
L
West
Haven,
UT
Dear
Senator
Mike
Lee
The
rising
generation
I
feel
knows
more
about
who's
dating
who's
in
Hollywood
than
who
is
the
senator
and
the
house
of
representatives
for
their
state.
I'm
not
going
to
lie
I
didn't
really
know
for
sure
who
they
were
either
until
a
few
weeks
ago.
In
my
mind
Mike
Lee
was
just
the
cool
Asian
kid
in
my
art
class.
However
now
I
have
learned
and
I
know
for
sure
who
Mike
Lee
is.
It
has
been
said
that
in
these
past
years
we
have
had
less
and
less
citizens
actually
vote,
and
this
number
continues
to
decline.
Yes
there
was
a
spike
in
2008
with
Obama
but
since
then
it
has
again
began
to
drop.
It
probably
isn't
the
older
generation
but
the
younger
generation
that
isn't
coming
out
to
vote
and
add
their
voice
to
the
nation's.
I
feel
it's
because
we
don't
have
much
of
an
attachment
to
those
who
are
running
in
the
race.
There's
no
connection,
and
if
our
senators
and
representatives
want
to
become
the
real
voice
of
the
people
of
theirs
states,
they
need
to
create
an
attachment
between
them
and
the
citizens
of
their
state.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
something
big
just
a
small
gesture
showing
that
you
care
about
us
individually.
Something
as
simple
as
wishing
us
a
Happy
Birthday.
Imagine
with
me
a
young
child.
Children
have
very
simple
minds.
They
could
care
less
about
how
successful
you
are.
Whether
you
are
a
Harvard
Graduate
or
a
high
school
drop
out
it
doesn't
change
the
effect
you
can
make
on
a
young
child.
What
does
matter
is
that
you
pay
attention
to
them,
play
with
them,
or
just
by
going
to
their
soccer
games.
Once
you
show
them
that
you
care
for
them
they'll
like
you
and
trust
you.
Even
if
a
child
doesn't
understand
how
the
judicial
system
works
or
who
the
senators
and
representatives
are
he'll
sure
understand
what
a
birthday
card
is.
You'll
create
a
lasting
relationship
with
this
child.
At
first
you
will
just
be
the
random
old
guy
that
sends
him
a
card
but
with
every
year
that
passes
he'll
slowly
learn
about
whose
been
sending
him
cards.
Phillippe
T
Provo
UT
Senator
Lee,
While
I
was
a
student
getting
an
engineering
degree
25
years
ago,
they
told
us
our
salaries
in
the
future
would
eventually
be
much
higher
due
to
the
trends
they
were
seeing
at
the
universities.
I
always
wondered
why
the
projected
increases
never
came
until
I
read
this
article.
If
there
is
any
truth
to
this
article
at
all,
we
should
have
your
job
and
that
of
your
staff
members
shopped
off
to
another
country
for
a
lower
price.
The
company
I
work
for
decided
to
hire
an
electrical
engineer
from
India
2
years
ago
based
on
how
cheaply
we
could
get
him
compared
to
qualified
Americans.
For
some
reason
it
is
ok
for
you
and
the
medical
professionals
to
get
paid
extremely
well
for
the
uniqueness
and
controlled
scarcity
of
your
jobs,
but
it
is
not
ok
for
the
engineers
to
get
paid
well
when
the
supply
is
low
and
the
demand
is
high.
Kendall
L
Bountiful,
UT
Senator
Lee
The
IRS
should
not
be
in
charge
of
administering
ObamaCare.
Period.
Under
ObamaCare,
IRS
bureaucrats
will
have
a
say
in
how
my
family
and
I
purchase
health
care.
The
IRS
is
unaccountable
enough.
Allowing
a
tax
agency
to
fine
Americans
for
not
meeting
health
care
standards
puts
the
government
between
me
and
my
doctor.
As
my
senator,
I
urge
you
to
support
legislation
that
will
stop
the
IRS
from
enforcing
ObamaCare.
Our
health
care
freedom
depends
on
it.
George
J
Moroni,
UT
Mar 18 2014
For many of those who visited my mobile office, including many veterans,
we have been able to begin the process of helping them resolve personal
issues they have involving an agency of the federal government.
Currently, there are legislative proposals that will clarify regulations and
provide the certainty that employers need to invest in energy production
and infrastructure in this country. These proposals would have an
immediate impact if passed. Proposals like Sen. David Vitter’s Energy
Production and Project Delivery Act of 2013, Sen. John Barrasso’s
Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013, and Sen. Cornyn’s
Endangered Species Settlement Reform Act, all of which I have
cosponsored, are just some of the important reforms we need to enact if
we are going to fully realize the benefits of homegrown American energy.
A recent article from the Wall Street Journal highlights how a vote for Rhea
Suh is a vote against increased energy production.
Ms. Suh's bio says that in nearly a decade at Hewlett she managed a
"portfolio of grants designed to protect the ecosystems of the western part
of North America." That sounds benign unless you know that the grants
went to the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and Natural Resources
Defense Council, all of which are opposed to energy production on federal
lands.
These groups are also part of the radical environmentalist community that
pioneered the “sue-and-settle” strategy by which organizations sue the
federal government and then obtain a settlement or consent decree that
requires the federal agencies to establish policies favorable to these
organizations. This strategy effectively silences the voice of the general
public from these policy debates by avoiding the rulemaking process
established by law. In fact, one of the greatest threats to responsible
economic growth in Utah is a result of one of these consent decrees. The
potential listing of the Greater Sage Grouse could derail most
development—drilling, ranching, mining, farming, water projects—on some
50 million to 100 million acres in the West. Ms. Suh would be overseeing
the agency that would implement the requirements of such a listing. The
coincidences are simply too obvious to overlook, as are the consequences.
First Wind Wind Farm (Milford, UT) - First Wind, a renewable energy
company based in Massachusetts, has invested millions of dollars into
Millard and Beaver counties by building 165 wind turbines with a combined
maximum capacity of 306 MW. The project was completed in two phases;
the first phase in 2009 and the second phase in 2011. To get the power to
First Wind's customers in California, the company built an 88-mile
transmission line and connected it to the already-existing Intermountain
transmission line. A member of my staff visited this wind farm to learn
more about this project and it's positive impact on the Milford City.
Beaver City Hydro Power Plant (Beaver, UT) - On Wednesday, April 16,
a member of my staff visited and toured two of Beaver City's three Hydro
Power Plant locations just east of the city. The first location became
operational in 1904 after Beaver City residents approved a $10,000 bond
to build the plant. The second location began generating power in 1942
and the third power plant was added in 1992. The three stations combined
produce approximately 9,200,000 KWH per year. It is refreshing to see a
great self-sustaining rural Utah community. Well done, Beaver City!
Cove Fort Geothermal Power Plant (Millard County, UT) - Cove Fort
Geothermal Power Plant, owned by Enel Green Power North America, was
constructed with a total investment of $126 million and opened in October
2013. Located in Beaver County, Utah, this geothermal plant is expected to
produce up to 160 GWH of power per year. A member of my staff toured
the exterior as well as the interior of the newly-built plant on Wednesday,
April 16.
It is clear from the reports from my staff who participated in these visits,
that Utah is home to a diverse range of energy resources and a home to
many innovators and risk-takers. It is for this reason that I introduced the
Energy Freedom and Prosperity Act to eliminate all energy subsidies from
the federal government while also lowering the overall corporate tax
rate. Instead of relying on a system where Washington chooses an
industry's winners and losers, we should be protecting a free enterprise
system where success is measured by the extent to which a product meets
the demands of consumers. This is the best way to ensure that we are all
winners.
May 23 2014
Aug 12 2014
Senator Mike Lee, Governor Gary Herbert* and Lt. Governor Spencer Cox
will give remarks, along with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who will
deliver a special keynote address in the morning. The early session will
also include two panels featuring state and city officials, as well as
business leaders to discuss the relationship between regulation and
economic development.
A visit to Switchpoint
In a recent trip to St. George, I was invited to tour Switchpoint: a new
facility in the area that provides temporary shelter and support for the
homeless community in Washington county. I was joined by St. George
City Councilmembers Bette Arial, Michele Randall, and Jimmy Hughes;
Mayor John Pike; and City Manager Gary Esplin. Carol Hollowell is the
director of Switchpoint, and she led the tour.
In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career
or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get
ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself
is to look out for your neighbors.
Aside from this community assistance, much of the operation of the facility
will depend on the volunteer work of those who are receiving its
services. While I was touring the kitchen, a woman who was receiving
assistance from Switchpoint was helping maintain the kitchen and
preparing lunch.
I also pointed out that the most important thing we need to focus on in
improving the PILT program is to educate those who come from states with
little federal land about the nature of this program. Every day I work to
educate my colleagues about the unique challenges faced by states with
high levels of public land. However, this education effort needs to be
promoted by everyone who is concerned with the future of PILT. I am
hopeful that those who attended this conference today will join me in this
effort.
Oct 17 2014
Encarnaction Trujillo was part of the Battle of the Argonne Forest, which
was fought from late September through November of 1918. The battle is
largely a forgotten one though it was one of the largest in American history.
Over 26,000 Americans were killed and 96,000 were injured in the fierce
and bloody battle that occurred there. Mr. Trujillo was wounded in his right
shoulder during the fight when he was hit by shrapnel.
Some might say he was just one man among the legions who fought in that
great battle – but I say - he was one man. The gates of history turn on very
small hinges and those hinges turn on the courage and commitment of
inspired individuals like Mr. Trujillo.
Dec 09 2014
I was very impressed with the thoughtful and intelligent questions that were
asked of me. It was clear that the students understood, and took seriously,
their rights and responsibilities as free citizens in a democratic republic like
the United States.
Our discussion covered everything from federal drug laws to the
challenges and opportunities facing young Americans today as they enter
adulthood and pursue their education or start a career. Some students
wanted to know whether or not I like my job (I said yes), and others asked
what my opinion is on the government’s record of defending our nation
from the threat of terrorism without infringing on people’s privacy.
Ultimately, I agreed with many of the students that it’s unnecessary for
TSA agents to pat down little old ladies at airport security!
I’m grateful for the students of Independence High School and for their
interest in learning more about our system of government. I’m also thankful
for Mr. Miller and his efforts to organize this great event. A retired
Lieutenant colonel, Mr. Miller explained the importance of young people
connecting with their elected representatives: “As a veteran of the US
Army (25 years) I feel honored and blessed to be able to teach the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to
these students. I have been stressing the need for them to be involved in
their government, and that government by the people only works when the
people are involved. Senator Lee proved to them that their voice matters.
pressi
ndex
Uni
tedSt
atesSenat
or
Mi
keLe
e
Medi
aOut
reach
2014St
ati
sti
cs
10Publ
i
shedOp-
eds
214,
661FansofOfficialFacebookPage
Websi
teTr
(
af
Per
f
icbyRegi
cent
on
agebyci
Sal
ty)
tLakeCi t
y 15.
7%
157
,315
Twi
tter
SouthJ ordan 6.
4%
Provo 5.
6%
St.Geor ge 5.
6%
Orem 4.
3%
Fol
l
ower s
Ogden 3.
8%
Draper 3.
4%
Logan 3.
4%
Bountif
ul 3.
2%
Layton 3%
AverageWebsi
te
15,
983 Vis
itspermonth
260,
869
Youtube 182 Medi
I
nt
a
er
views
VideoViews
Jan 16 2014
This closed, subsidized market has helped spur runaway inflation, which
has made it impossible for all but the wealthiest students to pay their own
way. So Washington’s offer to most high school graduates is: go tens of
thousands of dollars into (non-dischargeable!) debt to pursue an over-
priced degree, or spend the rest of your life locked out of the middle class.
This system works perfectly well for top-tier colleges and the affluent
teenagers they tend to admit.
For everyone else, not so much. For marginal students, victims of social
promotion, young single parents, or families who don’t want their kids
saddled with debt at 22? For innovative and entrepreneurial teachers? For
businesses and labor unions looking for in-demand skills?
For them, the current system doesn’t work – it works against them.
However unintentionally, Washington is pricing most Americans out of the
post-secondary opportunities that make the most sense for them, and
plunging most of the rest deep into debt to pursue an increasingly
nebulous credential.
It seems to me the answer isn’t more funding or lower rates for existing
Title IV programs. The answer is to make more kinds of students and more
kinds of education eligible for them.
Unprepared high school graduates could get loans to either acquire basic
professional skills, or start to pursue the academic education their
dysfunctional school boards and teachers’ unions denied them.
After all, the retired mechanic down the street and the stay-at-home mom
with the masters degree, and the Civil War re-enactor with encyclopedic
knowledge of military history are all potential teachers sitting on the
sidelines. Alternative accreditation could get them into the game.
We already know that people other than tenured academics can teach
college-level material, because adjunct professors, teaching assistants,
and high school Advanced Placement teachers do it every day.
And we already know credentials other than the B.A. work perfectly well in
fields that use them (for example, the CPA exam, the Series 7, or
journeymen exams in the skilled trades).
Providers will have to market their teaching excellence – only the best
teachers will earn their keep.
Some reformers might want to go even further – to open up the market with
a national system based in Washington, or blow up the status quo
altogether.
But that system – and especially the federal policies that govern access to
it – is failing the two-thirds of Americans who never get a B.A., and the
large minority of Americans who never set foot on a college campus.
The point of higher education policy should be to make it easier and more
affordable for good teachers to teach, willing students to learn, the
economy to grow, and civil society to flourish. State-based accreditation
reform can help on all four fronts.
Jan 21 2014
Now is the time for a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not
only corrects but transcends existing policies that cause immobility among
the poor and long-term unemployment.
In an 1861 address to Congress, Abraham Lincoln said the “leading object”
of American government was “to elevate the condition of men — to lift
artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit
for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.”
Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor; they were
poor mostly because they were isolated. And so, in America’s original war
on poverty, government did not give the poor other people’s money. It gave
them access to other people.
In Lincoln’s era, that meant dredging rivers, building canals, cutting roads,
the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods didn’t
make poverty more tolerable, but more temporary. They reduced the time it
took to get products to market and increased the speed at which
knowledge could be developed and shared.
In the same way, Americans today do not lack the ability to acquire the
knowledge and skills necessary to flourish. But they absolutely lack the
same access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge
and those skills are acquired.
Utah can provide a good example for the rest of the country. A combination
of smart, efficient government, an active and faithful civil society and
perhaps the most successful private welfare system in the world has made
Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in the country. And we have
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country to show for it.
That’s why I have begun and will continue to pursue a reform agenda in
Washington that begins to lift the artificial weights imposed by government.
It includes streamlining our current welfare system so people can work
their way into the middle class and stay there. Other reforms give more
flexibility to state and local officials in our Medicaid and Head Start
programs, refine prison sentencing to reunify communities and families,
eliminate inequities in the tax code that hurt parents, and make higher
education more affordable and accessible to low-income students.
Unemployment insurance can be a useful tool if it is used as a limited
backstop. But extending unemployment insurance indefinitely is not a
replacement for fixing the root causes of long-term unemployment and
poverty. We need an agenda that connects people, fosters civil society and
free markets, and gives Americans access to real, lasting opportunities.
Feb 01 2014
Defenders of this bill say it is a “compromise.” But this is only half true. This
thousand-page, trillion-dollar mess is less a compromise between House
Republicans and Senate Democrats than it is collusion between both
parties against the American people, to benefit the special interests at the
expense of the national interest.
This was the year the farm bill was supposed to be different. This was
supposed to be the year when we would finally split the bill into its logical,
component pieces, and reform them one at a time.
This was the year we might have strengthened the Food Stamps program
with work requirements. This was the year we might have made sure
wealthy Americans were no longer eligible for food stamps.
In fact, many of the few improvements the House and Senate initially tried
to include were removed during the secret conference committee process.
It is a lost opportunity all around.
The farm bill continues a troubling trend in Washington: using raw political
power to twist public policy against the American people, to profit political
and corporate insiders.
For instance, under this legislation, the federal government will continue to
force taxpayers to subsidize sugar companies, both through the tax code
and at the grocery store.
This bill maintains the so-called “dairy cliff,” which creates an artificial crisis
each time Congress considers a farm bill, a crisis used to avoid genuine
oversight and extract campaign contributions for incumbent politicians.
Under this farm bill, small, independent Christmas tree farmers will now be
required to pay a special tax to a government-created organization
controlled by larger, corporate producers. These costs will of course be
passed on to working families, and so every December, Washington will in
effect rob the Cratchits to pay Mr. Scrooge and his lobbyists.
Then there is the farm bill’s most offensive feature: its bullying,
disenfranchising shakedown of the American West.
More than 50 percent of all the land west of the Mississippi River is
controlled by a federal bureaucracy and cannot be developed. No homes.
No businesses. No communities or community centers. No farms or
farmers markets. No hospitals or colleges or schools. No little league fields
or playgrounds. Nothing.
Knowing the importance this funding has for western states, this year
Congress inserted PILT funding into the farm bill in order to extort political
concessions from their congressmen and senators, like in some two-bit
protection racket.
“That’s a nice fire department you got there,” Congress says to western
communities. “Nice school your kids have. Be a shame if anything should
happen to it.”
States like Utah are looking for nothing more than certainty and equality
under the law. Yet Congress treats these not as rights to be protected, but
vulnerabilities to be exploited.
Thus, support for the farm bill is a vote to keep Utahns and the citizens of
most western states permanently dependent on the whims of faraway
politicians.
Congress could do the right thing and return the land to the states, or it
could compromise and fully compensate western communities for the
growth and opportunity Washington denies them.
But the farm bill Congress just passed does neither. And we’re all going to
pay for it.
This should be an opportunity to bring our people together, not turn our
regions against each other, and turn the right to local government into a
political football.
Mar 25 2014
President Obama and the Democrats have done everything they can to
deserve defeat. But the Republican Party has not yet done what it must to
deserve victory. We have not yet won back the trust of the American
people, or explained exactly why they should give it to us. 2014 must be
the year we change that.
In the winter of 1977, Ronald Reagan and his conservatives were being
attacked by the Washington Republican establishment for challenging
President Ford in the 1976 primaries. They were being blamed for handing
victory to Jimmy Carter and the Democrats.
But Reagan knew that it was the party establishment that had lost that
election by losing touch and losing credibility. He knew the future of the
GOP was not the old party of Republican insiders, it was a new party of
conservative ideas.
An agenda for our time must meet the challenge of our time — and of this
generation. That challenge is America’s growing opportunity deficit.
Just as our founding generation made their way from the Tea Party in
Boston to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia; just as Reagan’s
generation made their way from defeat in 1976 to victory in 1980; so too
our generation must now turn from protest to reform, from criticism to
leadership, from division to unity.
According to a 2010 study by the Kauffman Foundation, all net job creation
in the United States between 1977 and 2005 came from firms five years
old and younger. Yet half of all new businesses fail in their first five years.
That is, almost all new American jobs come from the small fraction of new
businesses that rocket from startup to superstardom.
But it’s precisely the dynamism that new firms bring into the marketplace
that creates the jobs and growth our economy needs.
Without it, the American people have every reason to doubt our system’s
moral and material legitimacy. After all, if ordinary citizens who “work hard
and play by the rules” only end up subsidizing, propping up, and bailing out
privileged insiders who don’t, then the land of opportunity really isn’t.
But to seize this opportunity — to fix what’s broken in Washington and our
economy — a still-distrusted GOP first must end cronyism in our own
ranks. The GOP has to close its branch of the Beltway Favor Bank and
truly embrace a free-enterprise economy of, by, and for the people.
In fact, the Tea Act of 1773 actually lowered taxes on imports. What truly
offended the colonists was that it only lowered them for one corporation,
the politically connected East India Company, giving it an unfair, artificial
advantage over smaller, local American competitors.
Thus, not only was the American idea hatched in protest to a government
that was too big and too intrusive, but also protesting a government that
was willing and able to unfairly benefit favored special interests at the
expense of everyone else.
Like a black hole, cronyism bends the economy toward the state,
inexorably shifting wealth and opportunity from the public to policymakers.
The more power government amasses, the more privileges are bestowed
on the government’s friends, the more businesses invest in influence
instead of innovation, and the more advantages accrue to the biggest
special interests with the most to spend on politics and the most to lose
from fair competition.
Cronyist policies come in many shapes and sizes, but the upshot is always
the same: making it easier for favored special interests to succeed and
harder for their competitors to get a fair shot.
There are direct subsidies, like those that are supposedly necessary to
protect family farmers but overwhelmingly go to the top 10% of recipients.
There are also indirect subsidies, like the loan guarantees issued by the
Export-Import Bank, which unnecessarily risk taxpayer money to subsidize
well-connected private companies that are perfectly capable of securing
private financing anywhere in the world.
On the first two fronts there is some good news. A new generation of
conservative leaders is emerging to meet these growing challenges. These
reformers understand that it’s not enough to just cut big government. To
restore equal opportunity to all Americans, we also have to fix broken
government.
With deep roots and powerful friends, the policies that contribute to
America’s Opportunity Deficit will certainly not fix themselves.
Today, most students and families’ only option is federal student loan
programs, which offer some temporary relief but lead to decades of debt.
And for students who never acquire the skills necessary to succeed in
today’s economy—because they leave college early or because they
pursue a major that doesn’t prepare them for the job market—this debt can
become overwhelming.
But instead of asking how Congress can help students pay off exorbitant
loans, we should ask how Congress can reduce the cost of higher
education so students won’t have to go so far in debt.
It all starts with recognition of two important facts. First, in today’s society,
getting a four-year college degree is not the only way to obtain the
knowledge and skills necessary to start a successful career. For many
students, apprenticeships or occupational training programs make more
sense than a bachelor’s degree.
Second, in recent years educational entrepreneurs and innovators have
used new technology to redesign the traditional educational model—
through online courses, for instance—making post-secondary cheaper and
easier than ever before.
Unfortunately, federal law ignores both of these facts. Our current system
makes it harder and more expensive for students to access alternatives to
the traditional college track. The primary roadblock facing these students is
our outdated, inefficient accreditation system, which is made up of various
non-governmental agencies that determine which educational institutions
or programs are eligible for federal student-loan money.
Under current law, students can access federal loans and grants only if
they attend schools that are officially “accredited.” But for a school or
occupational training program to acquire this stamp of approval—and thus
be able to admit students who are paying their tuition bills with federal
loans—it must go through a review process conducted by faculty members
of already-accredited schools.
This lack of competition is a primary driver of rising tuition, which gives too
many students an impossible choice—crippling debt or limited
opportunities.
Too many Americans believe the American dream is slipping away for
them and their children. They see their cost of living rise while their
paychecks remain stagnant. They see an economy that benefits
stockbrokers but not stock clerks. They see the ladder of economic
opportunity being pulled farther up and out of their reach.
This isn't the result of a mere cyclical downturn in the U.S. economy, but
rather a fundamental transformation. In recent years, old industries have
fallen, new ones have risen, the skills required for high-paying jobs have
evolved, and the competition at all levels is increasingly global.
Today, parents are, in effect, double charged for the federal senior
entitlement programs. They of course pay payroll taxes, like everyone else.
But unlike adults without children, they also shoulder the financial burden
of raising the next generation of taxpayers, who will grow up to fund the
Social Security and Medicare benefits of all future seniors.
This hidden, double burden on parents isn't offset anywhere else in the
system, and so true conservative tax reform needs to account for it.
Children aren't consumer goods—they are investments parents make in
their futures, and in the future of America, and therefore deserve to be
treated as such in our tax code.
Our proposal would account for this and level the playing field for working
parents by augmenting the current child tax credit of $1,000 with an
additional $2,500 credit, applicable against income taxes and payroll
taxes—i.e., the taxes that most burden lower- and middle-income families.
The credit would not phase out, and would be refundable against income
tax and employer and employee payroll tax liability.
Some conservatives we respect wonder if such tax relief for families would
do enough to promote growth. But it bears remembering that the end goal
of economic policy isn't simply growth, but freedom—clearing the obstacles
from each American's unique pursuit of happiness. Millions of Americans
up and down the income scale choose to invest their personal economic
freedom in children and not just in commerce—in human and social capital
rather than just financial capital. We believe it is wrong to punish such a
choice.
Our plan would also ensure that our tax code works together with the
federal welfare system, so that low-income workers are able to climb into
the middle class without having to overcome 80%-100% effective marginal
tax rates. Often when a worker gets a modest pay raise, higher taxes and
lost benefits conspire to leave the person with little extra money in their
pocket. Ending this unfortunate reality will involve retooling the Earned
Income Tax Credit in coordination with means-tested programs to create a
welfare system that works better and removes poverty traps.
Our reforms would help spur growth where today's tax code obstructs it.
On the business side, we would cut the current 35% corporate tax rate to
make it competitive in the global economy. The exact rate will be
determined as we continue to shape the legislation, but it must be low
enough to end the problem of corporate inversions and the loss of
American jobs to other nations. We will also allow companies large and
small to deduct their expenses and capital investments while integrating all
forms of business taxation into a consolidated, single-layer tax.
We will also propose that businesses only be taxed in the country where
income is actually earned, rather than double-taxed when the money is
brought back home. The way to reverse corporate inversions and bring
capital in off the sidelines isn't to punish companies for obeying outmoded
laws, but to change those laws to make America once again the best place
in the world to pursue happiness and earn success.
In sum, our proposal would make it easier for Americans to find jobs and
easier for businesses to create them. It would help restore upward mobility
at the bottom of our economy and fair competition at the top. And it would
restore equal opportunity to working parents, America's ultimate investor
class.
If Republicans win the Senate this fall, passing pro-family, pro-growth tax
reform should be a cornerstone of our agenda next year. The plan we have
outlined won't only help revive the American dream, but also make it more
attainable for more Americans than ever before.
Messrs. Lee and Rubio, both Republicans, are U.S. senators from Utah
and Florida respectively.
Nov 06 2014
This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act
between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering
it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican
Congress, for two additional reasons.
1. Rebuilding Trust
Leaders can respond to this distrust in one of two ways. One option is the
bare-knuckled partisanship that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has
exhibited for the last eight years: twisting rules, blocking debate and
amendments, and systematically disenfranchising hundreds of millions of
Americans from political representation.
But this is no choice at all for the new Republican Majority. First, contempt
for the American people and the democratic process is something
Republicans should oppose in principle. Second, our new Senate majority
will be both ideologically diverse and temperamentally independent –
unlikely to be as docile and partisan as Senate Democrats have been. And
finally, the 2016 presidential primary campaign may include several
Republican Senators, whose incentives for differentiation in a crowded field
will make internal politics even harder to predict or control.
No, the new Republican majority has neither the institutional credibility nor
the cast of characters to expect backbenchers – let alone conservative
activists and groups - to unquestioningly follow orders. Rather than resent
or deny this fact, Republican leaders should embrace it. We should throw
open the doors of Congress, and restore genuine representative
democracy to the American republic.
No more “cliff” crises. No more secret negotiations. No more take-it-or-
leave-it deadline deals. No more passing bills without reading them. No
more procedural manipulation to block debate and compromise. These are
the abuses that have created today’s status quo – the status quo
Republicans have been hired to correct.
What too few in Washington appreciate – and what the new Republican
Congress must if we hope to succeed – is that the American people’s
current distrust of their public institutions is totally justified. There’s no
misunderstanding. Americans are fed up with Washington, and they have
every right to be. The exploitative status quo in Washington has corrupted
Americans’ economy and their government, and made its entrenched
defenders rich in the process.
This situation was created by both parties, but repairing it is now going to
fall to the Republican Party. It’s our job to win back the public’s trust. And
that can’t be done simply by passing more bills, or even better bills. The
only way to gain trust is to be trustworthy. I think that means we have to
invite the people back into the process, to give the bills we do pass the
moral legitimacy Congress alone no longer confers.
Whatever one might think of their relative merits, recent strategic initiatives
led by congressional back-benchers - the “Cut, Cap, Balance” budget plan
in 2011, the filibuster letter on gun control in early 2013, the effort to
defund Obamacare last fall, and to an extent, even the “Gang of Eight”
immigration bill – all represented efforts to fill vacuums created by
Republican leaders’ reticence and inaction.
Rather than resist this new reality, the new Republican majority can use it
to our advantage.
We’re going to be hearing that word, “govern,” a lot in coming weeks, as in,
“Now Republicans must show they can govern.” What is meant by this is
passing bills - quickly and with bipartisan support - and having them signed
into law, in order to show the country that Republicans can “get things
done.”
The truth is that, yes, Republicans should take every opportunity to reform
federal law wherever common ground with Democrats can be found. And if
good policy makes for good politics, as it usually does, so much the better.
But the trap is that Republicans in fact can’t “govern” from the House and
Senate alone — especially without a Senate supermajority. We can clearly
articulate our views and advance our ideas, and then see where we can
work with the president and congressional Democrats. But we have to do
these things in that order. We should find common ground that advances
our agenda, rather than let the idea of common ground substitute for our
agenda.
As it happens, these are all good ideas that I support. But if that’s as far as
Republicans go, we will regret it. The GOP’s biggest branding problem is
that Americans think we’re the party of Big Business and The Rich. If our
“Show-We-Can-Govern” agenda can be fairly attacked as giving Big
Business what it wants – while the rest of the country suffers – we will only
reinforce that unpopular image.
Insofar as the pent-up K Street agenda includes good ideas, then by all
means let’s pass those pieces by huge margins and send them to the
president. But a new Republican majority must also make clear that our
support for free enterprise cuts both ways – we’re pro-market, not simply
pro-business. To prove that point, we must target the crony capitalist
policies that rig our economy for large corporations and special interests at
the expense of everyone else – especially small and new businesses.
Taking on crony capitalism is a test of the political will and wisdom of the
G.O.P. To become the party of the middle class and those aspiring to join it
– our only hope for success in 2016 and beyond - we have to change more
than our rhetoric. The new Republican Congress does have to get things
done, but those things have to be for Main Street, too, not just Wall Street
and K Street. A big part of our “governing” test is whether we can stand up
to special interests. Leaders like Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling in the
House, and Marco Rubio and Jeff Sessions in the Senate have made the
fight against cronyism a point of emphasis – and it’s sure to be a theme in
the 2016 presidential primaries, too
This issue is reaching critical mass on the Right. And as I see it, it’s now a
political necessity, another one that we should embrace rather than resist.
The procedural and political realities of the Budget process demand that, in
an era of divided government, it highlight the contrasts between the two
parties. (Unless, like the Democrats, you ignore federal law and just don’t
do a Budget at all, the better to conceal your true beliefs from the public.)
Come the spring, House and Senate Republicans have to pass a common
Budget Resolution for the fiscal year starting next fall. The Budget’s
privileged process allows for its passage in the Senate with only 51 votes –
which in all likelihood will mean 51 (hopefully 54!) Republicans and no
Democrats. This step must be fulfilled to begin the so-called reconciliation
process, under which Congress can fast-track a single fiscal reform bill
later on – again with only 51 Senate votes.
It’s such a complicated process, and such a delicate political balancing act
that to succeed, the Republican establishment and conservative grassroots
should come to an agreement very early on the broad parameters of what
the Budget must entail.
Arguing over specific spending levels, cuts, programs, and reforms at this
point is probably unwise. Rather, we should try to agree on a handful of
principles that all Republicans can agree on and not try to have the budget
alone substitute for everything Congress needs to do.
3. Repeal Obamacare.
These goals comprise the closest thing our party has to a mandate in the
wake of this election, and my guess is that every House and Senate
Republican is already on record supporting them.
There are rumors around Capitol Hill that some Republicans don’t want to
repeal Obamacare in the budget process. They would prefer to pursue
something else – corporate tax reform, for instance – where bipartisan
cooperation may be more attainable. They want to use budget
reconciliation to “get a win.”
But this has things backwards, it seems to me. President Obama and
many Democrats have already voiced some support for corporate tax
reform. Any plan that could get the president’s signature wouldn’t need to
be done via reconciliation, because such a bipartisan compromise could
easily get 60 votes in the Senate. The whole point of reconciliation is that it
allows the majority one chance to pass something with only simple
majorities. For Republicans in 2015 – not as a matter of ideological purity
but of practical coalitional unity - that one thing has to include repealing
Obamacare. Corporate tax reform – and much else – can be pursued in
other ways.
One of the biggest traps Republicans and conservatives fall into is any
debate about budget “cuts.” When you stop for a moment and think, blindly
“cutting” the federal government’s budget is not a very conservative
approach to governing. After all, the conservative critique of Washington is
not that the federal government is a bit profligate, but otherwise efficient
and effective with our money. No, the problem with Washington is that it’s
comprehensively wasteful, unfair, and dysfunctional. It is, in a great many
areas of policy, trying to do the wrong things and doing them in the wrong
ways.
Just spending less on a misguided program doesn’t get you any closer to a
real solution than just spending more on it. If the program is dysfunctional –
if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, and what it’s supposed to do is
worth doing – fix it. Fixing a leaky faucet is not an arbitrary “cut” in one’s
water bill – it’s repairing a broken system so that it only costs what it must.
Republicans can approach federal reform the same way. We can make a
commitment in coming years not merely to cut big government, but to fix
broken government, which is the more difficult but far more important work.
For instance, we know for a fact that the federal highway trust fund wastes
money: on bureaucracy, on special interest giveaways, on projects that are
purely local and can be managed by state and municipal governments.
Therefore, when the time comes next spring to reauthorize the federal
highway program, the Republican Congress should insist on making the
system at least a little bit better – rather than just “finding the money” to
fully fund a legacy system we already know doesn’t work.
Sen. Tom Coburn has fought for years to clean up wasteful aspects of the
Defense Department budget that have no bearing on national security.
Sen. Dick Durbin and I have introduced a bill to reform federal criminal
sentencing guidelines, which would save taxpayers $2.5 billion over ten
years.
These are not heavy lifts or ideological crusades I’m describing. They only
seem novel because it’s been so long since we’ve had a functioning
legislature. My modest proposal is that if there is a good reason for
Congress to fund a program, that in and of itself is a good reason to
continually improve it.
5. Ryan-ize the Committees
Ironically (or not, if you know how Congress works), the most important
policy development in the Republican Party in the last decade was not
undertaken by party leaders in the House, Senate, or the White House. In
fact, formal party leaders largely discouraged it.
The end result was what Ryan called his “Roadmap for America’s Future.”
It called for major reforms to our tax system, our entitlement programs, our
health care system, and across the federal government. It was
controversial, of course. The immediate reception was predictable:
Democrats trashed it and most Republicans ran for cover. But in time,
people on both sides of the aisle were forced to admit that the Roadmap
was a serious document. It warranted a serious debate, and it has gotten
one ever since. When Republicans took back the House of
Representatives in 2011, some of the broad outlines of the Ryan Roadmap
became de facto positions of the Republican party – positions on issues
Democrats still try to pretend don’t exist.
For all the well-deserved plaudits Ryan gets for his brains, the Roadmap –
whatever one thinks of it - was really an achievement of his guts. He had
the courage to take his plan into the arena, and withstand criticism, even
from his allies. That is, he did what all politicians say we want to do – and
succeeded.
Government itself is one of the prime candidates for this kind of thinking.
Most systems we use to provide government services were designed
decades ago, before the tech and telecom revolutions that have changed
the way Americans do almost everything else. In twenty years, will we
need, say, a Government Printing Office or Internal Revenue Service in
anything like their current forms? If disruptive innovations continue to
personalize and localize the economy, will centralized, monolithic
bureaucracies be the right instruments to regulate it? Or is government just
as badly in need of some disruptive innovations that would enable market
forces, public desires, and longstanding constitutional principles to once
again show us the way and make our institutions more accountable?
Of course politicians cannot predict the future, nor can government direct
future industries any better than it directs current ones. But we know that
our society and our economy have rocketed out in front of our government,
and that the bureaucracy in its current form is unlikely ever to catch up.
Insisting that today’s leaders look beyond the next news cycle and the next
election cycle will benefit the country and the Republican Party in the long
run.
The only way to move incrementally in the right direction is to know which
way the right direction is. Long-term reform projects will lay down markers
for the Party while identifying opportunities for innovation in the nearer
term.
The above suggestions represent dramatic departures from Congress’s
status quo, but that’s the point. The new Republican majority cannot
indulge in fantasies of a mandate or public contentment with its political
institution.
In that time, the costs of the staples of middle-class life – housing, health
care, education, child-rearing, and retirement security – have risen,
unabated. Yet take-home pay is stagnant and jobs are increasingly
insecure. We are not getting this right.
But the cliché that Washington doesn’t work is not right, either. Washington
does work, for Washington. For many years, Congress has worked
perfectly well for so-called “stakeholders” on Wall Street, K Street, and
Pennsylvania Avenue. The challenge for the new Republican majority is to
put Congress back to work for Main Street — to make Washington work for
America.
The status quo is failing. So leaders need to seek for strategies and tactics
outside the status quo. The new Republican Congress cannot be led
according to the old ways of hierarchical deference, or appeals to
institutional trust.
“In America, the test of any political movement is not what that movement
is against, but what it is for. The founders made a point at Boston Harbor,
but they made history in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall.”
“But where does this new inequality come from? From government —
every time it takes rights and opportunities away from the American people
and gives them instead to politicians, bureaucrats, and special interests.”
Jan 29 2014
Lee: “…Is this [constitutional] analysis undertaken each time the president
issues an executive order and…was it undertaken when the president, for
example, announced on July 2nd , 2013, that he would not be enforcing the
employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act…?”
Holder: “…Those kinds of activities are done after consultation with the
Justice Department and an analysis is done to make sure the President is
acting in an appropriate and a constitutional way…”
Lee: “In which of those three categories would you put the president’s
decision to delay the employer mandate?”
Holder: “To be honest with you, I have not seen – I don’t remember looking
at or having – I haven’t seen the analysis in some time so I’m not sure
exactly where along the spectrum that would come…”
Lee: “How about the executive order he proposed last night with regard to
minimum wage?”
Holder: “Um, again, without having delved into this to any great degree that
would-“
Lee: “But you’re the Attorney General. I’m assuming he consulted you.”
Holder: “Well, there have been consultations done with the Justice
Department…”
Lee: “It would be very helpful for you to release legal analysis produced by
the Office of Legal Counsel, or whoever is advising the President on these
issues…”
Holder: “…[The president] has made far less use of his executive power at
this point in his administration than some of his predecessors have and he
will only do so, as I indicated previously, where he is unable to work with
Congress to do things together…”
Lee outlined several offensive provisions included in the bill, such as sugar
industry subsidies and the Christmas-tree tax, but reserved his greatest
criticism for holding PILT payments hostage in order to facilitate passage
of this deeply flawed legislation. Lee called it a “bullying, disenfranchising
shake-down of the American west.”
“I have been on the phone with county commissioners for weeks, who feel
they have no choice but to support a policy they know doesn’t work. This
bill takes away their ability to plan and budget with certainty, and forces
them to come back to Congress, hat in hand, every year. County
Commissioners know this is no way to run a community. I share their
frustration, and I applaud their commitment to their neighbors and
communities.”
Lee argued the best way to help the small rural communities that depend
on PILT payments is to make the program permanent, rather than forcing
Congress to authorize it each year.
“I’m convinced that in the long run, the best way to protect these
communities is to find a real, permanent solution that gives them the
certainty and equality they deserve. My vote against the Farm Bill will be a
vote to rescue Utahns from second-class citizenship, and local
communities in my state from permanent dependence on the whims of
faraway politicians.”
Feb 05 2014
“The Obama Administration has effectively bribed and coerced states into
adopting Common Core,” said Graham. “Blanket education standards
should not be a prerequisite for federal funding. In order to have a
competitive application for some federal grants and flexibility waivers,
states have to adopt Common Core. This is simply not the way the Obama
Administration should be handling education policy. Our resolution affirms
that education belongs in the hands of our parents, local officials and
states.”
FACT SHEET
Washington, DC- Today, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT),
Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Rand Paul (R-KY) announced the introduction of
a bipartisan resolution calling for Congress to have a role in approving any
further United States military involvement in Afghanistan after the current
mission ends on December 31, 2014. The Administration is reportedly
negotiating an agreement that could keep 10,000 American troops or more
in Afghanistan for another ten years.
“The American people should weigh in and Congress should vote before
we decide to commit massive resources and thousands of troops to
another decade in Afghanistan,” Merkley said. “After over 12 years of war,
the public deserves a say. Congress owes it to the men and women in
uniform to engage in vigorous oversight on decisions of war and peace.”
"After over a decade of war, Congress, and more importantly the American
people, must be afforded a voice in this debate,” Lee said. “The decision to
continue to sacrifice our blood and treasure in this conflict should not be
made by the White House and Pentagon alone."
“After 13 years, more than 2,300 American lives lost and more than $600
billion, it is time to bring our brave warriors home to the hero’s welcome
they deserve and begin rebuilding America, not Afghanistan,” Manchin
said. “We do not have an ally in President Karzai and his corrupt regime.
His statements and actions have proven that again and again. Most West
Virginians believe like I do money or military might won’t make a difference
in Afghanistan. It’s time to bring our troops home.”
“The power to declare war resides in the hands of Congress,” Paul said. “If
this President or any future President has the desire to continue to deploy
U.S. troops to this region, it should be done so only with the support of
Congress and the citizens of the United States.”
“Even for our highly centralized federal government, this rule represents an
extreme step in consolidating government decisions over distinctly local
matters within the hands of distant, unaccountable bureaucrats,” said Lee.
“Local authorities are far more attuned to the unique conditions and needs
of their communities, and they have a personal stake in their success. In
every state across the country, there is no doubt that a mayor and city
council officials will be more personally invested and more effective in
improving the lives of the people in their community than a federal official
located in Washington, D.C.”
WASHINGTON - In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled today that the
federal government cannot force closely-held businesses to violate
sincerely held religious beliefs in order to comply with the contraceptive
mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Senator Lee released the following
statement in response to the Supreme Court's ruling to protect religious
liberty:
“They deserve better than what Washington is offering, which is just the
status quo plus a little more money. A new era demands a new approach.”
Aug 13 2014
In the speech, Lee argued that while Reagan’s legacy may be best
remembered by what he accomplished in office, such as passing the
Recovery Act, it was in the years prior to becoming president where Regan
built the foundation for his future policy successes.
He knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren’t going to cut it.
Reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant.
His agenda was designed to give ordinary Americans even more power to
make those decisions. He respected them and trusted them, and thought
the government should simply get out of the way. He knew the answer
was not to get America to trust Washington; it was to get Washington to
trust America.
Oct 06 2014
“The Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in
Kitchen v. Herbert is disappointing. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a
state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union
between a man and a woman. Whether to change that definition is a
decision best left to the people of each state — not to unelected, politically
unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those
states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the
question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.”
Nov 06 2014
This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act
between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering
it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican
Congress, for two additional reasons.
As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have
my own ideas about what our party’s reform agenda ought to be, and I will
spend most of the next two years advocating them.)
Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help
repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild
Congress’s reputation among the American people, and by extension
slowly restore the public’s confidence in the Republican Party…
Nov 10 2014
“As we know, the President has recently announced that he will take
unilateral executive action on immigration. In so doing he has
circumvented the democratic process, broken the law, and subverted the
constitutional order. It is incumbent on every member of this body — no
matter what their politics, or what immigration policies they would prefer to
enact — to oppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the
rule of law.
“We have passed through the looking glass. And to see how far we’ve
gone inside, observe: Today the President asks the Senate to install, as
custodian of our border, a person who evidently believes that crossing our
border illegally earns you the right to vote. The Constitution gives the
Senate the responsibility to give the President advice about his executive
nominations, and ultimately its consent. My advice is this: The President
should not proffer a nominee for the job of executing our immigration laws
who affirmatively supports subverting them. But that is exactly what he
has done, so I cannot and will not give my consent.”