0% found this document useful (0 votes)
342 views253 pages

Annual Report (2014)

The document is Senator Mike Lee's annual report to the citizens of Utah. It highlights his work promoting smaller government and the "Utah Model" of free markets and voluntary civil society. He discusses reform efforts around tax policy, criminal justice, education, immigration, and other issues. The report also shares stories of individuals and organizations in Utah overcoming challenges through self-reliance. Senator Lee expresses his goal of ensuring all Americans have a fair chance at pursuing opportunity and success.

Uploaded by

Senator Mike Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
342 views253 pages

Annual Report (2014)

The document is Senator Mike Lee's annual report to the citizens of Utah. It highlights his work promoting smaller government and the "Utah Model" of free markets and voluntary civil society. He discusses reform efforts around tax policy, criminal justice, education, immigration, and other issues. The report also shares stories of individuals and organizations in Utah overcoming challenges through self-reliance. Senator Lee expresses his goal of ensuring all Americans have a fair chance at pursuing opportunity and success.

Uploaded by

Senator Mike Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 253

2014 ANN

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.

But much to my surprise, through the prayer, pledge of allegiance, and


even my opening remarks – which usually send at least a couple people to
the door – they remained right where they were.

As it turns out, they were students from another nearby college, and they
had come with one of their professors. I discovered this because, after my
opening remarks, the professor raised his hand and asked respectfully, on
behalf of his students: “Could you please explain to these young people
why exactly they should care about what you have to say?”

It was a great question, even a profound question. And I have been


thinking about it, in particular, since Dr. Arnn invited me to speak here this
evening.

As I saw it, this professor was actually asking two separate questions.
First, why should young people care about politics, period?

And second, even if young people do care about politics, why should they
care about what I – a conservative member of the Republican Party – have
to say about it?

Young Americans have the dual distinction of being the age cohort that is
most disengaged from politics, and also the cohort most supportive of the
Democratic Party.

It occurred to me that, in a way, he was asking these questions not just for
the group of students that he brought with him, but for young Americans
everywhere.

And so I’d like to use my time this evening to try and answer these two
questions.

First, why does politics matter?


To be clear, I’m not talking about the politics you see in popular culture, on
Scandal or House of Cards, or the politics of attack ads during campaign
season.

What I mean here is politics in the highest sense of the word. Politics in
this sense is the activity first of ordering and then of sustaining the regime
and the political constitution of a nation. It is the province of common
deliberation over the common good, guided by “reflection and choice,” as
Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 1, rather than dependent on
“accident and force.”

Politics is about self-government... it’s about governing ourselves as a


people, and governing ourselves as men and women of good character.
And politics always matters.

In Federalist 10, James Madison explained why: “As long as the reason of
man continues [to be] fallible, and [as long as] he is at liberty to exercise it,
different opinions will be formed.”

Man’s fallible nature: this is the eternal source of our political disputes...
this is the reason politics still matters today.

But for those who have never read the Federalist papers, or been lucky
enough to hear Dr. Arnn explain the word “architectonic,” there is a more
obvious and practical reason young people should care about politics…
because politics shapes the world they inhabit. Politics may not dictate
your path in life. But it absolutely will dictate whether that path is clear or
obstructed, safe or treacherous.

Young adults are constantly told that they are our country’s future. But in
truth, they are a large and growing part of our present. In truth, the world is
becoming more and more yours every day, with one glaring exception.

What defines the world around us today? Choice. Customization.


Community. Innovation.

When young people today see something that’s not working, they expect
that it can be fixed, through some combination of ingenuity, cooperation,
and technology. Whatever you need, there’s an app for that.

Tired of sifting through a media filter? Get news straight from the source on
Twitter.
Nothing good on TV? Fire up Netflix.

Need a ride? Open up Uber and Lyft on your smart phone.

Hotels too expensive? Get a place through Craigslist or AirBnB.

Local restaurants not doing it for you? There’s probably a food truck with a
social media account somewhere nearby.

And when something big needs doing, beyond an individual’s own needs,
everyone chips in and comes together to do it. They crowd-source, they
Kickstart.

This localized, customized, personalized approach to solving problems


through community and cooperation is transforming every aspect of
American society, except one – the one with the power to control all the
others.

While decentralized networks of mutual benefit adapt to an ever-changing


world by providing better, more personalized services, faster and at lower
cost all the time, government’s approach to new challenges is always and
everywhere to keep things exactly the same.

Resist the change. Preserve the status quo. Punish the disruptive
innovators.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. In fact, in every single sector I


mentioned above – the media, entertainment, travel, food service,
investing – the leading incumbents have urged government to restrict the
change. And in many cases they have been successful.

Americans are moving in a direction of greater individual and community


empowerment – while public policy is moving in the opposite direction,
toward consolidation and centralization. It’s going to be up to America’s
next generation to decide which way we go.

So the answer to the first question – why should young people care about
politics – is, on a certain level, pretty straightforward: politics matters
because it will in many ways define the world you inherent, and set the
parameters of the good you can do in it.
What about question number two? If the young should indeed be
interested in politics, why should they pay any attention to what a
Republican politician has to say?

After all, most of you have probably heard the old adage, often attributed to
Churchill: “If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if
you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.”

There’s probably some truth to this – though, for what it’s worth, I’ve been
heartless all my life.

But in truth, I believe young Americans’ recent opposition to the


Republican Party has much less to do with young Americans than with the
G.O.P. itself.

For too long – at least since the presidency of Ronald Reagan –


conservatives have failed to make our case to young people. We have
failed to explain how the conservative view of politics is truly distinct from –
and superior to – the progressive view.

The most important disagreements between conservatives and


progressives today are often over the biggest things: our conception of
justice and the common good, our understanding of the good life and
human flourishing.

But I think the most clarifying way to bring out these differences between
the Right and the Left is to compare the visions of American life underlying
our immediate political and policy agendas.

These visions represent the basis for how each side understands the
present and what they hope for in the future... they inform how we
diagnose a problem and they shape the solutions we propose.

One of the clearest and most revealing illustrations of the progressive


vision of American society that I have ever come across was the Obama
campaign’s web slideshow from the summer of 2012 called “Life of Julia.”

Anyone remember it? For those fortunate enough to have avoided it, the
“Life of Julia” was a series of animated slides telling the story of a fictional
woman who was meant to represent the average American woman.
Viewers could scroll through the slides and see how, at every stage of life
from age 3 to 67, Julia was not just enriched – but fulfilled – by a federal
government program.

When I saw it, I wasn’t sure if I should laugh or cry... I think I did both.

But I also learned from it, because it revealed the Left’s extraordinarily thin
and empty view of American life. Theirs is a vision of society in which there
are only two players: Julia and Washington, D.C.... the individual and the
state.

All other relationships and pursuits are virtually non-existent. And to the
extent they appear in Julia’s life, they are incidental to – and also
dependent upon – the benevolence of the state.

Julia’s family is mentioned twice, but only in passing and only as a conduit
to additional government benefits.

Community makes just a single appearance, and it’s not until the age of
67, when Julia begins receiving Social Security benefits, which –
somehow, someway – [QUOTE] “allows her to volunteer at a community
garden.”

But this isn’t what life looks like, is it?

The conservative vision of American society begins from a very simple


observation: in the real world – not Julia’s world – we are not isolated
individuals and we’re not wards of the state.

Indeed, our lives are lived – and made meaningful – in the space between
these two extremities... as husbands and wives; parents and children;
teachers and students; neighbors and neighborhoods; volunteers and
congregations; bosses and employees; businesses and customers; clubs,
teams, and associations.

We are, in a word, citizens... who deliberate, participate, self-govern, and


consent to be governed by our fellow citizens.

It is in this vital space between the isolated individual and the impersonal –
often oppressive – state where lives intersect, relationships are formed,
knowledge is shared, opportunity is created, and happiness is pursued.
It is in this space where Americans have always come together, in the free-
market economy and voluntary civil society, to meet each other’s needs,
improve each other’s lives, and overcome common challenges.

We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But
really, they are networks – networks of people and information and
opportunity, where your success depends on your service.

The miracle of these networks – what makes them uniquely powerful – is


that they impel everyone – regardless of race, religion, or wealth – to
depend not just on themselves or the government, but on each other.

It is these relationships of interdependence and these communities of


mutual cooperation that are at the heart of the conservative vision of
America. They form the very fiber of our Founders’ vision of a self-
governing republic.

The progressive, Life-of-Julia vision conceives of only two possible


scenarios in life: radical, you’re-on-your-own individualism or all-
encompassing government collectivism.

Conservatives reject this as a false choice – and reality proves us right.

America has always been – and continues to be – a place where the most
frequent, the most effective, and the most enriching forms of common
action occur in that vital space between the individual and the state.

Tocqueville famously marveled at the robust, vibrant, dynamic, and


sometimes even boisterous public and civic life in America.

Unlike any other country in the world, he admired, “In the United States ...
There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of
the collective power of individuals.”

If you think about it, that’s just another way of saying... “There’s an app for
that.”

In Tocqueville’s mind, the American people’s capacity – and penchant – for


joining together in pursuit of a common cause represented their chief virtue
not because of what they did, but because of what they learned.
When “common affairs are treated in common,” he explained, “each man
[comes to learn] that he is not as independent of [his neighbors] as he at
first fancied,” and he learns that to obtain the support of his neighbors “he
must often lend them his cooperation.”

In other words, in America freedom has never meant “you’re on your own”
– it will always mean “we’re all in this together”... we all have mutual
responsibilities to each other and all of our fellow citizens.

And it’s important to note that this conservative vision is not anti-
government.

Constitutional government is necessary to protect and expand the space


for the institutions of the free market and civil society to thrive. It is also –
especially at the local level – one of the most important institutions of civil
society.

In Tocqueville’s time, the township was the most common form of local
government, and he praised its centrality in American life. “Without the
institutions of a township,” he said, “a nation can give itself a free
government, but it does not have the spirit of freedom.”

Progressives, of course, reject all of this. For them, everything that stands
between the individual and the federal government is viewed with
suspicion.

Compared to the objectivity and sophistication of bureaucrats and


politicians in Washington, families, neighborhoods, religious and civic
associations, businesses, and local and state governments are
instruments of prejudice and sanctuaries of privilege.

As the Left sees it, only government workers in the nation’s capital are
sufficiently enlightened and detached from their own self-interest to act in
the common good... and of course it’s just a coincidence that Washington,
D.C. is surrounded by six of the ten wealthiest counties in the country.

As the Life of Julia demonstrated, community is not a place to find


opportunity – it’s not where you learn critical skills and habits like empathy,
self-control, and cooperation. No, in the progressive vision, community is
where you go when you retire.
The trouble with the progressive, Life-of-Julia vision isn’t just its hollow
view of life or the creepy omnipresence of the state, but rather its success
in establishing the terms of the debate.

For too long their binary view of society has been firmly imprinted in the
minds of America’s youth not because it’s more attractive than the
conservative vision, but because it’s gone virtually unchallenged.

Even worse than surrendering the field, too often the Republican Party has
actually embraced the progressive caricature of conservatism as radical
individualism.

Thus the task facing conservatives today is, quite simply, to offer an
alternative... the true conservative vision that rejects the false choice
peddled by progressives and proves there is a path between “Galt’s Gulch”
and Detroit.

Exposing the ugliness and emptiness of the progressive vision won’t be


enough to advance our cause. We also need to tell our story – we need to
demonstrate, in word and in deed, the virtues and the humanity of our
vision.

We will fail if we continue to limit ourselves to opposing government


dependency. We must also celebrate the dignity of our interdependence
with each other, and embrace the responsibilities that are indivisible from
our freedoms.

It will always be our duty to reject the intolerance, conformity, and coercion
of hyperactive government. But we must do more. We must also bear
witness to the true diversity – of thought and of character – that naturally
flourish when individuals, families, and communities are free to live in
accordance with their convictions and the dictates of their conscience.

We don’t need to give up our support for investing in physical and financial
capital. But we must also insist that the most important investments we
make as a nation will be in human and social capital.

Above all we must recognize that breaking the progressives’ monopoly on


the imagination of America’s youth is going to take much more than a
politician giving a speech, or hosting a town hall event... it’s going to take
the persistent, determined efforts of everyone in this room.
Bringing in the rising generation to the conservative movement is about
more than winning votes – it’s about changing hearts and minds. It is a
cultural project with political implications.

And I’m here tonight to ask all of you not to join me in this effort, but to lead
it.

 
 
Improving America's Regulatory
Climate  

It is my distinct privilege to welcome all of you to the inaugural – and


hopefully first annual – Utah “Solutions Summit.”

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.

The United States is facing an opportunity crisis, up and down the


economic ladder, and government is too often only making it worse.

Millions of Americans are out of work – many are long-term unemployed.


Yet today one out of three jobs requires a government license –
government permission just to work.

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.

So we should not see reforming the regulatory system as a kind of


ideological revolution. It’s more like giving Washington a badly needed
time-out.

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.

But there is one statistic worth highlighting. To my mind it’s a key to


thinking about solutions to our regulatory problems.

The figure is: 51-to-1. This is the ratio of regulations issued by bureaucrats
to laws passed by Congress in 2013.

A lot of people say the explosion of the regulatory state is a usurpation of


congressional authority. But it’s more like subcontracting. Congress has
given the executive branch this authority for its own convenience.

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.

Seen in this light, helicopter government is actually a win-win for Congress:


all credit, and no blame. After all, as legal scholar John Hart Ely put it,
“Accountability is pretty frightening stuff.”

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.

So as we think about solutions to America’s regulatory sclerosis, we need


to think about more than just better regulations. We need to think about the
underlying system, to once again line up the incentives of the policymakers
and the public they serve.

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.

There is a reason that Washington, D.C. is home to six of the ten


wealthiest counties in America today – despite the fact that it produces
almost nothing of intrinsic economic value to the economy.

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.

And as difficult as regulations can be on new or would-be entrepreneurs,


they are far more destructive to far more vulnerable Americans, the
poorest among us, trapped in the margins of our society.

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.

So regulatory reform, then, should have three goals:

• Freeing the economy from the stifling burdens of helicopter


government;
• Restoring political accountability to the regulatory process; and
• Restoring equal opportunity for all businesses and all Americans, so
that success in America is earned, not earmarked.

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.

Personally, I don’t love the term “sharing economy.” Because in a free


enterprise system, every business is in the sharing business –
collaborative cooperation for mutual benefit. That’s the definition of free
enterprise.

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.

But these companies increasingly find themselves the target of regulatory


interference, driven by special interests that are trying to use the power of
the state to protect their status-quo privileges.

Here we have concrete examples of exactly the kind of start-up capitalism


the American people need, and the kind of unfair, un-American regulation
we are here today to talk about solving.

So the question before us today is: how do we create a system that


provides clear, commonsense regulations that help the economy work
while protecting the American people’s freedom to earn their success in
the market?

That’s what we’re here to discuss, and I look forward to hearing your ideas.

From my perspective in the Senate, I think accountability has to be a part


of the answer. People who face regular election would never support many
of the regulations we’re dealing with. And they don’t want to have to.

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?

Forcing Congress to take ownership over the laws imposed on the


American people will improve the incentives for us to finally get those rules
right. At the very least, it could bring some valuable discipline to the system
and start to clear the brush of outdated and unnecessary regulations.

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.

I have introduced several proposals recently to address this inequality


crisis, and several of my proposals are designed to return power that has
concentrated in Washington back to the states and their state
legislatures. For example, the Higher Education Reform Act would enable
states to create alternative accreditation standards higher education
institutions. The Transportation Empowerment Act would lower the federal
gas tax and empower states to build and maintain their own transportation
infrastructure without all of the bureaucratic overhead costs that come from
sending the money to Washington first. I also introduced the Welfare
Reform and Upward Mobility Act to Utah's legislators. This proposal will
strengthen work requirements for social welfare programs to turn these into
programs that help Americans earn a good living and build a good life. As
this proposal will also improve state administration of welfare programs, I
was encouraged to see a strong reception of these proposals by Utah's
state legislature.

Local governments solve local problems better than an expensive,


centralized government in Washington D.C., and when I meet with Utah's
local officials, I am convinced that they need to be equal partners and allies
when it comes to solving our nation's greatest problems.

 
 
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.

It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible


says the poor will always be with us, it can still be hard to accept that fact
in a nation with a $15 trillion economy.

And yet, more than 50 years after President Lyndon Johnson’s famous
“War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics.

Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late
1960s, the poverty rate across the country has hardly budged. And nearly
every strategy we have employed in this “war” – dealing with everything
from health care to criminal justice – has failed to achieve genuine change
in our most vulnerable communities.

In that same time, participation in civil society, marriage, and religion have
deteriorated in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship
with social isolation.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that America’s war
on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.

On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new,
bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if conservatives summon
the courage to lead it.

First, let’s be clear about one thing.

The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but
in 1776: when we declared our independence and affirmed the equal rights
of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For more than two hundred years, the United States –through good times
and bad – has waged the most successful war on poverty in the history of
the world.

From our very Founding, the tools Americans relied on to overcome


poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our
free-enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.

We usually refer to the free market and civil society as “institutions.” But
really, they are networks – networks of people and information and
opportunity.

What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impel everyone
– regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend not simply on
themselves or the government, but on each other. In a free market
economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career or your cause,
your success depends on your service.

For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation
has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and
cooperation.
Together, America’s free-enterprise economy and voluntary civil society
enabled millions of ordinary Americans to protect themselves – and each
other – from material want and social isolation … long before Lyndon
Johnson tried to do better by growing and centralizing government
authority.

Defenders of today’s status quo say that any critique of our welfare system
is really just a thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the social safety net. But
what we all should want – and what I certainly do want – is not to destroy
the safety net, but to make it work.

This is an important point for us to remember: the constitutionally limited


but indispensable role that government played in America’s original war on
poverty. That role was best expressed by a president who understood
poverty better than most.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the “leading object” of


American government was:

“to elevate the condition of men – to lift artificial weights from all shoulders,
to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start
and a fair chance, in the race of life.”

In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what
government ought to do about it.

As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was, for most people, not an
absence of money, but an absence of opportunity – a lack of access to
those social and economic networks where human opportunities are
created.

Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor – they
were poor mostly because they were isolated. And however unintended,
too many government programs today only exacerbate that isolation.

Networks of opportunity formed within the free market and civil society are
not threats that poor families need more protection from. They are
blessings that poor families need more access to.

And so, in America’s original war on poverty, government did not give the
poor other people’s money. It gave them access to other people.
In Lincoln’s era that meant dredging rivers, building canals, and cutting
roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities.

These public goods weren’t designed to make poverty more tolerable – but
to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to
market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at
which knowledge could be developed and shared.

Poor farmers and trappers in Lincoln’s Mid-West were no worse at their


trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. They just didn’t
enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and economic
capital.

Likewise, poor children today possess the ability to acquire the knowledge
and skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. But what they lack is
access to the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge and
those skills are acquired.

Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about lifting
people up. It’s about bringing people in.

And so the challenge to us today is to rethink the war on poverty along


these lines... to bring into our economy and society the individuals,
families, and communities that have for five decades been unfairly locked
out.

Nineteen-sixty-four wasn’t the year Americans started fighting poverty; it


was the year we started losing that fight. To start winning again,
conservatives are going to have to lead the way - by offering not simply
criticisms, but alternatives.

Today, too many of those “artificial weights” Lincoln described are


themselves government policies. Our federal government has become
overwhelmed with outdated institutions and dysfunctional policies making it
harder for Americans on the margins to build a good life for themselves
and their families.

Our education policies trap poor kids in failing schools, and our broken tax
code treats marriage and work as costly burdens rather than essential
pathways to personal happiness and prosperity. Meanwhile, we have a
health care system that confines the most vulnerable among us to the
lowest quality care and criminal justice laws that tear apart families and
fracture communities.

A truly comprehensive anti-poverty agenda must address these poverty


traps wherever they exist. To make poverty temporary, rather than simply
tolerable, such an agenda must not only correct – but transcend – existing
policies.

Forging an agenda of practical and effective anti-poverty reforms will


require creative thinking, bold leadership, and hard work – inside and
outside government. That’s why I’m so grateful the Sutherland Institute and
the American Enterprise Institute, with Arthur Brooks at the helm, are
leading this effort.

These are two of the most trusted, innovative, and influential research
institutions in the country, thanks largely to their work developing a
conservative “social justice agenda.”

For both institutions, it’s not just an “anti-poverty” agenda that we need –
it’s a “pro-happiness” agenda. They recognize that people living in poverty
aren’t data points or statistics – they’re human beings who, like all of us
here, want to lead prosperous and satisfying lives.

And while happiness may not mean the same thing for everyone, it always
involves some combination of what Arthur calls “institutions of meaning,”
which exist in the vital human space between the isolated individual and
the oppressive state: faith, family, community, and work.

This is a critical point to remember in our fight against poverty: some of our
most important investments will be not in economic capital, but in human
and social capital. This begins, of course, with everyone’s primary source
of human and social capital: the family.

People of good will can disagree about whether government policy should
privilege families, in recognition of their unique role in the pursuit of
happiness and justice. But I think everyone should be able to at least agree
that government should not unfairly penalize families.

That’s why I’ve introduced a pro-family, pro-growth tax reform plan


designed not just to grow the economy, but to increase freedom and
opportunity for America’s low-income earners and working families. I’m
working on a new version of the plan now with my friend, Senator Marco
Rubio.

Alleviating the economic burdens of building a family isn’t – or at least


shouldn’t be – a political issue. That’s because poverty shouldn’t be a
political issue… it’s a human issue that each of us, regardless of party
affiliation, has a moral obligation to address.

The Sutherland Institute and the American Enterprise Institute understand


this, and believe it or not, even some of my colleagues in Congress are
starting to catch on. For instance, one of my favorite bills in Congress right
now is the Smarter Sentencing Act, which I’m co-sponsoring with two of
the most liberal Senators in the country, Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois
and Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont.

The three of us don’t always agree on everything, but we came together in


the Judiciary Committee to introduce this bill, which would modernize our
drug sentencing polices by giving federal judges more discretion in
sentencing those convicted of non-violent offenses.

The idea behind the bill is simple: for those in our prison system who are
not violent and pose no threat to our communities, we have a moral
obligation to get them re-integrated into our nation’s networks of social and
economic mobility.

Legislative proposals like the Smarter Sentencing Act aren’t, as most


people like to say, “bipartisan” – they’re simply common sense. They
recognize that reducing poverty isn’t about pouring more money into, or
taking more money out of, our dysfunctional government programs. It’s
about fixing the underlying system so that every dollar we spend actually
connects underprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market
and civil society.

Whether it’s empowering lower-income Americans with better health care


options, or giving parents the power to choose where they send their
children to school, many of our solutions to poverty will follow a similar
pattern: we need to replace our unresponsive systems centralized in the
Washington bureaucracy with bottom-up solutions that empower the
people closest to the problems to find solutions that work best for them.

For this, Utah offers a great model for the rest of the country. All across the
state we see real, meaningful change in our communities achieved through
a combination of efficient local government, a prosperous economy, an
active civil society, and perhaps the most successful private welfare
system in the world.

In August, while crisscrossing the state during Congress’s so-called


“recess,” I had the privilege of touring the facilities of Switchpoint, an
organization that perfectly exemplifies the “Utah model” for fighting poverty.

Located in St. George, Switchpoint provides temporary shelter and support


services for the homeless in Washington County. And I can tell you, this
was no D.C.-run welfare program: the people at Switchpoint did more than
just offer a warm bed and a decent meal – they transformed lives.

And it all happened organically: volunteers brought in non-profits and local


government agencies so that Switchpoint residents could easily access the
services they needed to get their lives back on track; local business and
contractors donated materials and labor for renovations; another group
donated computers so that residents can participate in on-line job training
programs; religious groups and other charities donated crucial resources;
and, perhaps best of all, the bulk of the operations of Switchpoint were
carried out by the people staying there.

All of this was living proof of what ordinary people can do – and will do – to
help those around them. Even without a bureaucrat in D.C. telling them
what to do and how to do it, the people of Washington County came
together – as neighbors, business owners, and friends, volunteers and
local government officials – to lift up the needy, bring in the marginalized,
and restore hope to the most vulnerable.

I want to close with another story from our state – a story that shows the
Switchpoint model is really the Utah model in miniature.

In October 1856, two groups of handcart pioneers on their way to Utah


were stuck on the plains of Wyoming: short of provisions, with winter
coming, the ground so hard they could not dig graves for those who
expired in the cold.

In what is now Salt Lake City, Brigham Young stood to open a general
conference of the church, where the citizens anxiously waited to hear the
inspiring speeches and powerful sermons common to such gatherings.
Instead, he began by reading the report sent to Salt Lake by the leaders of
the handcart groups. It told of:

“between five and six hundred men, women, and children, worn by drawing
handcarts through the snow and mud; fainting by the wayside; falling,
chilled by the cold; children crying, their limbs stiffened by cold; their feet
bleeding and some of them bare to snow and frost.”

Brigham Young then called the people to action, with this simple message:
“Many of our brethren and sisters are on the plains with handcarts … and
they must be brought here, we must send assistance to them.”

He said he would not wait until tomorrow or the next day. He called for forty
young men, sixty-five teams of mules or horses, and wagons loaded with
twenty-four thousand pounds of flour to leave immediately to rescue those
pioneers in the wilderness.

“I will tell you all,” Young said, “that your faith… and profession of religion,
will never save one soul of you… unless you carry out just such principles
as I am now teaching… Go and bring in those people now on the plains.”

The rescue party quickly assembled and headed East.

Days later, they reached the pioneers – with food and blankets and hope.
The survivors were then carried, some literally on the backs of their
rescuers, to Salt Lake – home at last, where they belonged.

Today, millions more of our neighbors are still out on the plains. They are
not some government’s brothers and sisters – they are ours.

And the time has come to do something about it. As conservatives, as


Americans, and as human beings, we have it in our power – individually,
together, and where necessary through government… to bring them in:

• to bring them into our free enterprise economy to earn a good living,
• to bring them into our voluntary civil society to build a good life,
• and to welcome them and their children home to an America that
leaves no one behind.

Thank you, and God bless.


Answering  Reagan’s  Challenge  
Remarks at the Reagan Ranch

It is more than an honor to be with you here today. For a conservative


politician, speaking at Rancho del Cielo is like a musician playing a set at
Sun Records or a ballplayer taking the field at Fenway Park.

I am humbled by the opportunity.

My first real exposure to the Reagan Administration occurred when I was


about ten years old. My father, the late Rex E. Lee, served as the Solicitor
General of the United States during President Reagan’s first term in
office. It is the job of the Solicitor General to serve as the federal
government’s advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. Like every lawyer,
the Solicitor General has a client—it’s the federal government, and
specifically the presidential administration in power. As a practical matter,
that meant that my dad was President Ronald Reagan’s voice in the
Supreme Court.

When my dad was nominated by President Reagan and was confirmed by


the Senate, my family made a move from our familiar surroundings in
Provo, Utah to McLean, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C. When
school started in the fall of 1981, I was full of apprehension, and with good
reason. The D.C. area somehow didn’t seem nearly as friendly as
Provo. I felt like an outsider at my new school. And I was.

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.

Although I didn’t understand everything that went on in the Court, I loved to


watch my dad argue there, advancing the official positions of the Reagan
Administration on important issues involving the Constitution and the role
of the federal government. What I learned most of all, perhaps, is that
there is a cadence and a rhythm to being a good advocate for good
government.

Just as there is a familiar cadence among skilled lawyers, there is also a


familiar cadence to conservatism. No one understood that cadence better
or mastered it more completely than Ronald Reagan. He had the cadence
of confidence. He had the cadence of courage. He had the cadence of
compassion.

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.

For all Americans – but for conservatives and Republicans in particular -


the legacy of Ronald Reagan will always serve as an inspiration. But it
should also serve as a challenge.

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.

Today, conservatives tend to think of that moment as the beginning of


Reagan’s – and the country’s - triumphant era, which would eventually
usher in the longest peacetime recovery in American history, victory in the
Cold War abroad, and the restoration of the American Dream at home.

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 obvious achievements following August 1981 provide a showcase of


what we can learn from our 40th president. But some of the most important
lessons we can take are from Reagan’s hard and heroic work leading up to
his electoral victory in 1980.

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.

But it wasn’t just about statistics. Humiliating failures of leadership at home


and abroad throughout the previous decade had taken their toll as well. A
psychological pall was descending on the country, leaving Americans
uncharacteristically anxious and pessimistic. When grinding stagflation
steered us toward yet another recession, many Americans began to
wonder if our best days had come and gone.

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.

The Republican establishment – timid and unimaginative by nature - hoped


the Democrats’ unpopularity might allow Republicans to win a few
elections by default.

But this status-quo strategy did not interest Reagan.

Reagan wanted to build a new Republican Party, a new majority coalition,


a new conservative movement that would not just cut across party lines...
but permanently redraw them.

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:

“[The forgotten man] works, he votes, generally he prays-- but he always


pays--yes, above all, he pays... his name never gets into the newspaper
except when he gets married or dies... He is strongly patriotic. He is
wanted, whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to
be given... All the burdens fall on him, or on her, for ... the Forgotten Man is
not seldom a woman.”

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.

Indeed, in a National Review essay a month after the 1964 election -


before his name was ever on a ballot - Reagan reminded a defeated
conservative movement:

[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]

To Ronald Reagan, these Americans were never forgotten.

From the beginning, he built his politics around a profound respect for the
honest, hardworking men and women who made America work.

Many of these Americans, like Reagan himself, believed government


should stand on the side of the little guy against unfair concentrations of
political and economic power.

They still believed that. And so did Reagan.

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.

Reagan needed a way to transform this anti-liberal majority into a pro-


conservative majority.

He didn’t want to spin them, or play on their fears. He respected them: he


wanted actually to persuade them.

He knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren’t going to cut it.
Reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant.

He rebuilt conservatism with a concrete agenda of innovative reforms to


directly help and empower all of the forgotten Americans whom liberalism
always leaves behind.

He advocated marginal tax-rate reduction. This, Reagan correctly


promised, would allow workers to keep more of their own income, raise
wages, and create new jobs.

He advocated a strong dollar. This, Reagan correctly promised, would


help us gain control over the inflation that was gnawing away at middle-
class wages, savings, and aspirations.

And he advocated an aggressive defense build-up. This, Reagain


correctly promised, would help us expose and defeat an aggressive,
atheistic, and violent empire that threatened the life of every American, and
the future of every child.

So often, Reagan’s success is chalked up to his personal attributes - his


charm, his humor, his political and communication skills. He had all those
things when he ran for president the first time. But alas, those personal
attributes alone were not enough.

We must always remember that in 1976, conservatives found a leader for


the ages... but they still lost. By 1980, they had forged an agenda for their
time, and only then—with an agenda and a messenger for that agenda—
did they win.
Armed with this agenda, Reagan not only confronted liberalism head-on,
he also connected with those long-forgotten Americans by aligning his
movement, his party, and his message around them.

It’s time for us to do it again.

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.

Meanwhile, a chasm of distrust is opening between the American people


and their government. Both parties are seen as incapable of producing
innovative solutions to growing problems, or uninterested in even trying.
Reagan’s “forgotten Americans” are once again being left behind.

Once again, the Left has betrayed the trust of the American people. But the
Right has not won it back.

So it seems to me that conservatives today need to do what Reagan did in


the late 1970s: identify the great challenges holding back America’s
working families, and propose concrete, innovative solutions to help
overcome them.

Just like Reagan did, as conservatives today we need to re-apply our


principles to the challenges of the moment. We need to offer the country a
new, positive reform agenda that remembers America’s forgotten families
and puts the federal government back on their side.

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?”

Reagan listened to the forgotten and the disillusioned American. Can we


be our best? I know that we can at least be better. Congress can do
better. We can expect more out of our leaders, more out of ourselves. We
can fix, cut, and tear down walls that confine our liberty—in any era. We
can expect more. We can expect reform.

Let me give you a few examples.

A conservative reform agenda needs to reduce taxes for families. Today,


marginal tax rates are much lower than they were in August 1981. They
are so low that almost half of all households pay no income tax. But most
working families are still overtaxed, some by thousands of dollars a year.
How? Because of the hidden double tax the current system imposes on
parents through the payroll tax to fund our senior entitlement programs.

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.

A conservative reform agenda also needs to spur economic growth.

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 in Washington, economic policy is driven by a corrupt alliance of big


government and big business conspiring to keep out the new, disruptive
competitors that innovate, transform, and create new jobs and growth.
True conservative reform should level the playing field for all businesses –
small and large, new and old. That’s where new jobs, innovation, and
growth come from – from Main Street, not Wall Street, K Street, and
Pennsylvania Avenue.

Look at our nation’s infrastructure. America needs more highways, more


bridges, more local transit. But the old federal transportation trust fund is
now permanently insolvent because 20% of the money it takes in is
skimmed right off the top by special interests, bureaucracy, and
inefficiency.

Real conservative transportation reform could cut out those Beltway


middle-men. We need to create a 21st-century, open-source transportation
network of sustainable, local innovation that empowers America’s diversity
and ingenuity.

Another example is our broken higher-education system.

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.

Washington sees this structural dysfunction, and immediately launches into


an argument about... the interest rate on student loans. We shouldn’t be
arguing about tenths-of-a-percent on $40,000 tuition – we should be fixing
the system so college doesn’t cost so much in the first place. And we need
to increase access to new schools that can accommodate the needs of
non-traditional students, like single parents, who can’t afford to study full
time.

A conservative reform agenda must confront a welfare system that isolates


the less fortunate. A reformed system would start to bring the poor back
into our economy and civil society.

Real welfare is not about dependency, but mobility – designed to make


poverty temporary instead of just tolerable.

A conservative reform agenda must include plans for an energy revolution.


Just look at what’s going on in North Dakota and Texas and elsewhere. Let
it create all the jobs and opportunities and energy independence it can. Let
all energy producers compete on a level playing field – new technologies
and old, large businesses and small – with equal opportunity for all and
cronyist subsidies and special treatment for none.

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.

Like Reagan’s, the agenda I am describing is based on something too


often missing in our politics today: respect for the American people.

As president, Ronald Reagan understood that the forgotten Americans


were the people really in charge. And they still are.

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.

And Ronald Reagan was okay with that. He celebrated it.

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.

Today, some see it as ironic that as Reagan decentralized power to a


diverse, divided nation... we came back together. But it’s not ironic at all.
It’s the tried-and-true genius of the American way of life that has sustained
our exceptional republic for more than two centuries.
Reagan’s agenda was an attempt to empower Americans to come together
to make our economy more wealthy and our society more rich.

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.

And really, that is Ronald Reagan’s enduring challenge to conservatives,


and Republicans, and all Americans: to believe in each other. To trust and
respect the courage and industry and wisdom and ingenuity and
compassion and hope of our people.

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.

A new generation of problems demands a new agenda of solutions: to


answer Reagan’s challenge, and to once again remember America’s
forgotten families.

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.

Enlist as 21st-Century Reagan revolutionaries. See beyond the next eight


years into the next 80. Join me in taking the road less traveled. We are
the forgotten Americans who have new ideas, start businesses, start
families, volunteer as room mothers and little-league coaches, we are the
flag raisers, the builders, the workers and the inventors. We are the
dreamers and the stewards, we are the shopkeepers by day and the
homemakers at days’ end.

We are the people who James Madison, George Washington, Thomas


Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, had in mind and Ronald Reagan did not
forget. We are the light emanating from the city on a hill; we are the
keepers of the flame, the guardians of liberty.

We are the people—the unassuming heroes marching forward in Reagan’s


cadence of confidence in that quiet adventure we still call the American
Dream.
legis
lative
activi
ties

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

PREPARED BY THE SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS, LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

January 2015
Mike Lee, of Utah

SECTION I. SPONSORED MEASURES

S. 1904 DATE INTRODUCED: 01/09/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the eligibility requirements for funding under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 31, 2014 Vitter
Nov 12, 2014 Cruz
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jan 09, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

S. 2015 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/11/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to help individuals receiving assistance under means-tested welfare programs obtain
self-sufficiency, to provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide an
overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Cruz, Vitter, and Inhofe
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 11, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 2119 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/12/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Head Start Act to authorize block grants to States for prekindergarten education.

STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 12, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

S. 2127 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/13/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to the powers of the Department of Justice
Inspector General.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Tester, Grassley, and Murkowski
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 27, 2014 Coburn
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 13, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2137 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/13/2014

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.

S. 2279 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/01/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate certain energy tax subsidies and lower
the corporate income tax rate.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 15, 2014 Toomey
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 01, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 2617 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/16/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Vitter, Cruz, Scott, Sessions, Coburn, Johnson of Wisconsin, Cornyn, Rubio, and Alexander
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 16, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

S. 2748 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/31/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to conform citizen suits under that Act with other
existing law, and for other purposes.

STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 31, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2752 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/31/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the disclosure of certain expenditures
under that Act, and for other purposes.

STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 31, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2885 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/18/2014

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.

S. 2988 DATE INTRODUCED: 12/08/2014


OFFICAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a Federal regulatory budget and to
impose cost controls on that budget, and for other purposes.

STATUS ACTIONS:
Dec 08, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.

I-3
Mike Lee, of Utah

SECTION II. COSPONSORED MEASURES

S. 1919 DATE INTRODUCED: 01/14/2014


SPONSOR: Paul
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Wyden, Gillibrand, Lee, Tester, Merkley, Warren, and Murphy
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jan 15, 2014 Cruz
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jan 14, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 1955 DATE INTRODUCED: 01/16/2014


SPONSOR: Enzi
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to transport knives interstate, notwithstanding a patchwork
of local and State prohibitions.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 23, 2014 Risch
Sep 10, 2014 Crapo
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jan 16, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 2011 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/11/2014


SPONSOR: Flake
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from modifying the standard for determining whether an
organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Roberts, McConnell, Cornyn, Alexander, Thune, Hatch, Enzi, Inhofe, Burr, Rubio, Boozman,
Coats, Moran, Scott, Risch, Vitter, Graham, Johanns, Fischer, Coburn, Isakson, Toomey, Johnson
of Wisconsin, Cruz, Lee, Blunt, Wicker, Kirk, Chambliss, Portman, Paul, McCain, Crapo, Barrasso,
Cochran, Hoeven, Corker, Shelby, and Grassley
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Feb 12, 2014 Heller
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 11, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

II - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah

S. 2013 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/11/2014


SPONSOR: Rubio
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the removal of Senior Executive Service
employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs for performance, and for other purposes.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Lee, and Coburn
Mar 13, 2014 Cornyn
Apr 02, 2014 Vitter
Apr 03, 2014 Thune
Apr 08, 2014 Johnson of Wisconsin
Apr 28, 2014 Burr
Apr 29, 2014 Heller, and Moran
Apr 30, 2014 Cruz
May 06, 2014 Inhofe
May 12, 2014 Ayotte, and Roberts
May 13, 2014 McConnell
May 14, 2014 Isakson
May 20, 2014 Grassley
May 21, 2014 McCain, Scott, Johanns, Boozman, and Risch
May 22, 2014 Nelson, Toomey, Portman, and Graham
Jun 02, 2014 Alexander, Chambliss, Flake, Paul, Warner, Pryor, Hagan, Klobuchar, Shaheen,
Landrieu, Feinstein, Franken, and Collins
Jun 03, 2014 Enzi, Barrasso, Sessions, Walsh, Hoeven, and Fischer
Jun 04, 2014 Manchin, Kirk, Coats, Hatch, Wicker, Corker, Blunt, and Cochran
Jul 15, 2014 Crapo
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 11, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

S. 2024 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/12/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, with regard to the definition of "marriage" and
"spouse" for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Feb 24, 2014 Vitter, and Roberts
Feb 26, 2014 Inhofe, and Cochran
Mar 11, 2014 Scott, and Johanns
Mar 12, 2014 Sessions
Mar 24, 2014 Wicker
Apr 30, 2014 Risch
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 12, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
Feb 24, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 308.

II - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah

S. 2048 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/26/2014


SPONSOR: Hirono
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible for admission into
the United States as E-1 and E-2 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the
Government of New Zealand.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, McCain, Rubio, Schumer, and Murray
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Hatch, and Flake
Mar 27, 2014 Risch
Jun 05, 2014 Murphy
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 26, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2066 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/27/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the intentional discrimination of a person or
organization by an employee of the Internal Revenue Service.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Grassley
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Lee
Mar 13, 2014 Inhofe
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 27, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
Mar 03, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 311.

S. 2067 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/27/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prohibit the Department of the Treasury from assigning tax statuses to organizations based on
their political beliefs and activities.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Grassley
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Lee
Mar 13, 2014 Inhofe
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 27, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
Mar 03, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 312.

II - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah

S. 2072 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/27/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prohibit the Department of the Treasury from assigning tax statuses to organizations based on
their political beliefs and activities.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 27, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 2073 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/27/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the intentional discrimination of a person or
organization by an employee of the Internal Revenue Service.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 04, 2014 Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 27, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2104 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/11/2014


SPONSOR: Flake
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to require the Director of the National Park Service to refund to States all State funds that were used
to reopen and temporarily operate a unit of the National Park System during the October 2013 shutdown.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Udall of Colorado, Alexander, McCain, Bennet, Lee, Hatch, and Corker
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 11, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Jul 23, 2014 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks.
Hearings held.
Nov 13, 2014 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without
amendment favorably.
Dec 10, 2014 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Landrieu without
amendment. With written report No. 113-298.
Dec 10, 2014 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 638.

S. 2113 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/12/2014


SPONSOR: Coburn
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of Government
programs and areas of duplication among them, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Ayotte, Begich, Burr, Chambliss, Collins, Cruz, Enzi, Flake, Hatch, Inhofe, Johnson of Wisconsin,
McCain, McCaskill, Paul, Portman, Risch, Scott, Vitter, and Warner
ADDED COSPONSORS:

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.

S. 2159 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/26/2014


SPONSOR: Graham
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to restore long-standing United States policy that the Wire Act prohibits all forms of Internet
gambling, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Ayotte, and Feinstein
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Nov 19, 2014 Coats
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 26, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2161 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/26/2014


SPONSOR: Inhofe
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing any final rule
under the Clean Air Act until the date on which the Administrator improves certain employment effect
analyses under that Act.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
McConnell, Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Blunt, Vitter, Sessions, Crapo, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn,
Cruz, Flake, Isakson, Johnson of Wisconsin, Moran, Risch, Scott, Shelby, Enzi, Cochran, Lee,
Johanns, Roberts, Grassley, Wicker, Boozman, Burr, and Graham
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Mar 31, 2014 Hoeven
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 26, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2170 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/27/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to free the private sector to harness domestic energy resources to create jobs and generate
economic growth by removing statutory and administrative barriers.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Apr 08, 2014 Lee

II - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah

STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 27, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

S. 2218 DATE INTRODUCED: 04/08/2014


SPONSOR: Hirono
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the eligibility of certain territories and
regions for designation for participation in the visa waiver program and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Kirk, and Klobuchar
STATUS ACTIONS:
Apr 08, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2265 DATE INTRODUCED: 04/29/2014


SPONSOR: Paul
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prohibit certain assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn, Inhofe, Moran, McConnell, Wicker, Coats, Graham, Burr, Roberts, Cornyn, Shelby, Hatch,
Toomey, and Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 01, 2014 Enzi
May 07, 2014 Thune, and Grassley
STATUS ACTIONS:
Apr 29, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

S. 2280 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/01/2014


SPONSOR: Hoeven
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Landrieu, McConnell, Murkowski, Portman, Wicker, Johnson of Wisconsin, Crapo, Thune,
Johanns, Blunt, Alexander, Inhofe, Flake, Roberts, Chambliss, Enzi, Toomey, Lee, Sessions,
Scott, Coats, Cornyn, Kirk, Isakson, Grassley, Rubio, Fischer, Coburn, McCain, Corker, Hatch,
Cochran, Barrasso, Vitter, Risch, Boozman, Burr, Graham, Heller, Paul, Moran, Cruz, Shelby,
Ayotte, Collins, Begich, Pryor, Heitkamp, Warner, Donnelly, Manchin, Walsh, McCaskill, Tester,
and Hagan
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 01, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
May 05, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 371.
Nov 18, 2014 Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
Nov 18, 2014 Under the order of 11/12/14, not having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, failed of
passage in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 59 - 41. Record Vote Number: 280.

II - 6
Mike Lee, of Utah

S. 2295 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/06/2014


SPONSOR: Leahy
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to establish the National Commission on the Future of the Army, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Graham, Mikulski, Cochran, Tester, Alexander, Wyden, Risch, Coons, Johanns, Walsh, Crapo,
Donnelly, Lee, Markey, Roberts, Manchin, Grassley, and Cardin
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 07, 2014 Menendez, Barrasso, Moran, Johnson of South Dakota, and Pryor
May 08, 2014 Burr, and Schatz
May 12, 2014 Thune, Stabenow, Harkin, and Wicker
May 13, 2014 Casey, Enzi, Rockefeller, and Gillibrand
May 14, 2014 Heitkamp, and Heinrich
May 15, 2014 Franken, Klobuchar, and Hirono
May 21, 2014 Rubio, Hatch, Hoeven, Boozman, Warren, and Durbin
May 22, 2014 Schumer, and Sanders
Jun 12, 2014 Toomey
Jun 17, 2014 Merkley
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 06, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

S. 2301 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/07/2014


SPONSOR: Hatch
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend section 2259 of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Schumer, Portman, Markey, Toomey, Murray, Graham, Feinstein, Grassley, McCain, Cornyn,
Klobuchar, and Pryor
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 15, 2014 Lee
Jun 02, 2014 Blumenthal
Jun 09, 2014 Roberts
Jun 16, 2014 Kirk
Jul 10, 2014 Rubio, and Blunt
Jul 22, 2014 Ayotte
Jul 29, 2014 Franken
Jul 30, 2014 Udall of New Mexico
Nov 20, 2014 Coons
Dec 11, 2014 Whitehouse
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 07, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 2316 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/12/2014


SPONSOR: Thune
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to require the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs to submit a report on wait
times for veterans seeking medical appointments and treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs,
to prohibit closure of medical facilities of the Department, and for other purposes.

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.

S. 2336 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/14/2014


SPONSOR: Rubio
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to eliminate the payroll tax for individuals who have attained retirement age, to amend title II of the
Social Security Act to remove the limitation upon the amount of outside income which an individual may
earn while receiving benefits under such title, and for other purposes.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jun 12, 2014 Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 14, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 2371 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/21/2014


SPONSOR: Portman
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the
impact of major revenue legislation.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Graham, Kirk, Chambliss, Flake, Blunt, Johanns, Inhofe, Crapo, Rubio, Barrasso, Thune, Scott,
Vitter, Ayotte, Lee, Burr, and Fischer
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jun 03, 2014 Isakson
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 21, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.

S. 2394 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/22/2014


SPONSOR: Enzi
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide certain Western
States assistance in the development of statewide conservation and management plans for the protection
and recovery of sage grouse species, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Barrasso, Hatch, Risch, Lee, Murkowski, and Crapo
STATUS ACTIONS:
May 22, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2440 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/05/2014


SPONSOR: Udall, of NM

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.

S. 2496 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/19/2014


SPONSOR: Barrasso
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters of the United States.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Vitter, McConnell, Risch, Rubio, Crapo, Wicker, Inhofe, Coburn, Johanns, Enzi, Cornyn, Sessions,
Toomey, Grassley, Boozman, Fischer, Hatch, Roberts, Paul, Thune, Isakson, Heller, Cochran,
Chambliss, Blunt, Hoeven, Cruz, Lee, and Burr
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jun 24, 2014 Moran, Scott, McCain, and Flake
Jun 26, 2014 Coats, and Alexander
Jul 07, 2014 Graham
Jul 16, 2014 Corker
Sep 09, 2014 Shelby
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 19, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2631 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/17/2014


SPONSOR: Cruz
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to prevent the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program unlawfully created
by Executive memorandum on August 15, 2012.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Sessions
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 22, 2014 Vitter, and Inhofe
Jul 28, 2014 Johanns
Jul 30, 2014 Boozman, and Lee

II - 9
Mike Lee, of Utah

Jul 31, 2014 Moran, and Roberts


STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 17, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
Jul 21, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 473.

S. 2685 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/29/2014


SPONSOR: Leahy
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business
records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other
forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for
other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Durbin, Heller, Franken, Cruz, Blumenthal, Udall of New Mexico, Coons, Heinrich, Markey,
Hirono, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Schumer, and Sanders
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 31, 2014 Booker
Aug 01, 2014 Menendez, and Brown
Nov 17, 2014 Murray
Nov 20, 2014 Boxer
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 29, 2014 Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
Jul 30, 2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 499.
Nov 12, 2014 Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate.
Nov 12, 2014 Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate.
Nov 18, 2014 Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate.
Nov 18, 2014 Cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay
Vote. 58 - 42. Record Vote Number: 282.

S. 2756 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/31/2014


SPONSOR: Blumenthal
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to promote competition and help consumers save money by giving them the freedom to choose
where they buy prescription pet medications, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Schumer and Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 31, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 2782 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/09/2014


SPONSOR: Sanders
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States, and for other purposes.

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.

S. 2833 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/17/2014


SPONSOR: Thune
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to improve the establishment of any lower ground-level ozone standards, and for other purposes.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
McConnell, Vitter, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Wicker, Fischer, Flake, Blunt, Coats, Johanns, and
Boozman
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Sep 18, 2014 Scott
Dec 01, 2014 Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Sep 17, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 2944 DATE INTRODUCED: 11/19/2014


SPONSOR: Hatch
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A bill to amend the Social Security Act to provide for the termination of social security benefits for
individuals who participated in Nazi persecution, and for other purposes.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Nov 20, 2014 Burr, Toomey, Wyden, Wicker, Isakson, Grassley, Coats, Rubio, Cornyn, Kirk, Lee,
Enzi, and Bennet
Dec 01, 2014 Brown
Dec 02, 2014 Casey
Dec 03, 2014 Schumer, Warner, Nelson, and Gillibrand
STATUS ACTIONS:
Nov 19, 2014 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S.J.Res. 30 DATE INTRODUCED: 01/16/2014


SPONSOR: McConnell

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.

S.Res. 345 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/06/2014


SPONSOR: Graham
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution strongly supporting the restoration and protection of State authority and flexibility in
establishing and defining challenging student academic standards and assessments, and strongly
denouncing the President's coercion of States into adopting the Common Core State Standards by
conferring preferences in Federal grants and flexibility waivers.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Grassley, Scott, Inhofe, Cochran, Cruz, Wicker, and Enzi
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Feb 11, 2014 Coats
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 06, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

S.Res. 347 DATE INTRODUCED: 02/06/2014


SPONSOR: Merkley
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution providing for completion of the accelerated transition of United States combat and military
and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Manchin, Paul, Harkin, Leahy, Whitehouse, Begich, and Wyden
STATUS ACTIONS:
Feb 06, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

S.Res. 382 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/12/2014


SPONSOR: Grassley
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to modify the provision relating to timing for filing
of cloture motions.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn, Enzi, Coats, Paul, Cruz, Johanns, Johnson of Wisconsin, Hatch, Sessions, Flake, Risch,
Inhofe, Fischer, Lee, Toomey, Blunt, Burr, Vitter, Thune, Chambliss, Isakson, Scott, Roberts,
Barrasso, and Rubio
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 12, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

II - 12
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Res. 407 DATE INTRODUCED: 03/31/2014


SPONSOR: Sessions
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution honoring former Senator and Rear Admiral Jeremiah Andrew Denton, Jr.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Shelby, Reid of Nevada, McConnell, Alexander, Ayotte, Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Bennet,
Blumenthal, Blunt, Booker, Boozman, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey,
Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cochran, Collins, Coons, Corker, 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, Shaheen, Stabenow, Tester, Thune, Toomey, Udall of
Colorado, Udall of New Mexico, Vitter, Walsh, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wicker, and Wyden
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 31, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 444 DATE INTRODUCED: 05/13/2014


SPONSOR: Alexander
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution relative to the death of Harlan Mathews, former United States Senator for the State of
Tennessee.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Corker, Reid of Nevada, McConnell, 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:
May 13, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 469 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/11/2014


SPONSOR: Portman
OFFICIAL TITLE:
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.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Ayotte, Chambliss, Cochran, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch, Hoeven, Inhofe, Kirk, Paul, Roberts,
Sessions, and Thune
ADDED COSPONSORS:

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.

S.Res. 471 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/11/2014


SPONSOR: Collins
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution honoring former President George H.W. Bush on the occasion of his 90th birthday and
Barbara Bush on the occasion of her 89th birthday and extending the best wishes of the Senate to former
President Bush and Mrs. Bush.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
King, Cornyn, Reid of Nevada, McConnell, Leahy, Portman, Blunt, Rubio, Ayotte, Hatch,
Chambliss, Thune, Shaheen, Isakson, Toomey, Harkin, Boozman, Heller, Wicker, Fischer,
Alexander, Sessions, Coats, Corker, Coburn, Hoeven, Enzi, Grassley, Barrasso, Inhofe, Crapo,
Risch, Burr, Lee, Cruz, Roberts, Flake, Vitter, Johanns, Franken, McCain, Paul, Murray, Scott,
Cochran, Shelby, Durbin, and Kirk
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 11, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 474 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/12/2014


SPONSOR: Levin
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution designating June 19, 2014, as "Juneteenth Independence Day" in recognition of June 19,
1865, the day on which slavery legally came to an end in the United States.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Cornyn, Cardin, Whitehouse, Landrieu, Hagan, Harkin, Durbin, Warren, Markey, Pryor, Boxer,
Stabenow, Rubio, Toomey, Warner, Casey, Kaine, Franken, Nelson, Reid of Nevada, Gillibrand,
Leahy, Murray, Udall of Colorado, Paul, Coons, Cruz, Baldwin, Udall of New Mexico, Feinstein,
Wicker, Hirono, Scott, Portman, Begich, Mikulski, Booker, Bennet, Schumer, Heinrich, Brown,
Murkowski, and Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jun 16, 2014 Klobuchar
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jun 12, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 494 DATE INTRODUCED: 06/26/2014


SPONSOR: McConnell
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution relative to the death of Howard H. Baker, Jr., former United States Senator for the State of
Tennessee.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:

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.

S.Res. 496 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/07/2014


SPONSOR: Durbin
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution relative to the death of the Honorable Alan John Dixon, former United States Senator for the
State of Illinois.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Kirk, Reid of Nevada, McConnell, Alexander, Ayotte, Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Bennet,
Blumenthal, Blunt, Booker, Boozman, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey,
Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cochran, Collins, Coons, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Cruz, Donnelly, 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, 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, Walsh, Udall of New Mexico, Vitter, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wicker, and Wyden
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 07, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 498 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/10/2014


SPONSOR: Graham
OFFICIAL TITLE:
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.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Menendez, Ayotte, Schumer, McCain, Corker, Rubio, Blunt, Kirk, Toomey, Alexander, Moran,
Johanns, Heller, Inhofe, Fischer, Collins, Cruz, Vitter, Paul, Blumenthal, Boxer, Nelson, Franken,
Murkowski, Thune, Grassley, Hatch, Murphy, Scott, Cardin, Crapo, Chambliss, Roberts, Casey,
Wicker, Coats, Shaheen, Tester, Kaine, Lee, and Begich
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 14, 2014 Boozman, Coons, Hagan, Burr, Markey, Mikulski, Stabenow, Pryor, Warner,
Landrieu, Flake, Gillibrand, Cochran, Barrasso, Schatz, and Cornyn
Jul 15, 2014 Hirono, Heitkamp, Klobuchar, Heinrich, Levin, Donnelly, Bennet, Udall of Colorado,
and Portman
Jul 16, 2014 Whitehouse, Booker, Durbin, Brown, Johnson of Wisconsin, and Manchin

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.

S.Res. 512 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/23/2014


SPONSOR: Vitter
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Environmental Protection Agency and the
proposed rules and guidelines relating to carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Cornyn, Thune, Wicker, Inhofe, Blunt, Crapo, Fischer, Sessions, Boozman, Coats, Enzi, Roberts,
Chambliss, Risch, McConnell, Cochran, Moran, Johanns, Barrasso, Murkowski, Rubio, Hoeven,
Coburn, Shelby, Hatch, Toomey, Isakson, Lee, Cruz, Alexander, and Kirk
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 23, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S.Res. 530 DATE INTRODUCED: 07/30/2014


SPONSOR: Portman
OFFICIAL TITLE:
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 (ISIL).
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, Baldwin, Barrasso, Blunt, Boozman, Cantwell, Cardin, Chambliss, Collins, Crapo, Enzi,
Fischer, Grassley, Heller, Hoeven, Inhofe, Isakson, Johanns, Kirk, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lee,
Levin, Manchin, Markey, McCain, Moran, Risch, Johnson of Wisconsin, Rubio, Sessions,
Shaheen, Stabenow, Thune, Wicker, Hatch, Durbin, Vitter, and Ayotte
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 31, 2014 Kaine
Aug 01, 2014 Cruz
Sep 08, 2014 Coons
Sep 17, 2014 Roberts, and Burr
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 30, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sep 08, 2014 Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sep 18, 2014 Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute favorably.
Sep 18, 2014 Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Menendez with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title and with an amended
preamble. Without written report.
Sep 18, 2014 Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 575.
Sep 18, 2014 Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title and
an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent.

II - 16
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Res. 539 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/09/2014


SPONSOR: Leahy
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution relative to the death of James M. Jeffords, former United States Senator for the State of
Vermont.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Sanders, Reid of Nevada, McConnell, Alexander, Ayotte, Baldwin, Barrasso, Begich, Bennet,
Blumenthal, Blunt, Booker, Boozman, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey,
Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cochran, Collins, Coons, Corker, 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, 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, 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:
Sep 09, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

S.Res. 543 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/11/2014


SPONSOR: Enzi
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution designating November 1, 2014, as National Bison Day.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Johnson of South Dakota, Portman, Bennet, Inhofe, Markey, Whitehouse, Roberts, Hatch,
Heitkamp, Cornyn, Wicker, Donnelly, Baldwin, and Johanns
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Sep 15, 2014 Lee, Feinstein, and Moran
Sep 16, 2014 Hoeven, and Thune
Sep 17, 2014 Gillibrand, and Schumer
STATUS ACTIONS:
Sep 11, 2014 Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sep 17, 2014 Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Sep 17, 2014 Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.

S.Res. 554 DATE INTRODUCED: 09/17/2014


SPONSOR: Franken
OFFICIAL TITLE:
A resolution recognizing the month of October 2014 as "National Principals Month".
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Hatch, Markey, Cochran, Boozman, and Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Sep 17, 2014 Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.

II - 17
Mike Lee, of Utah

SECTION III. SPONSORED AMENDMENTS

S.Amdt. 2721 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/06/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1845
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2737 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/11/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1963
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2770 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2771 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2772 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2773 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982

III - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2774 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2820 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/12/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1086
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2821 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/12/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1086
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
To prohibit States from providing the Secretary with reports containing personally identifiable information.

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.

S.Amdt. 2848 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/13/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1086
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2849 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/13/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1086
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2923 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014

III - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah

SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 2924 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Rubio

S.Amdt. 2925 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Rubio

S.Amdt. 2966 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/08/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2199
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Murkowski

S.Amdt. 2985 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/06/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2262
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3102 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

III - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Amdt. 3154 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3305 DATE SUBMITTED: 06/19/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 4660
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Vitter

S.Amdt. 3380 DATE SUBMITTED: 06/25/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 803
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
To require that evaluation reports are due every fourth year, to establish a reservation of funds in a fiscal
year in which a report is due, and to establish a reduction in funds if a report is not submitted.

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.

S.Amdt. 3474 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/08/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 10, 2014 Johanns

S.Amdt. 3475 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/08/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 10, 2014 Johanns

III - 4
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Amdt. 3476 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/08/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3537 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/10/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3584 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/23/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 5021
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending for highway programs and mass transit
programs.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 28, 2014 Cruz
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jul 29, 2014 S.Amdt. 3584 proposed by Senator Lee.
Jul 29, 2014 S.Amdt. 3584, under the order of 7/23/2014, not having achieved 60 votes in the
affirmative, was not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 28 - 69. Record Vote
Number: 246.

S.Amdt. 3845 DATE SUBMITTED: 09/18/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.J. Res. 124
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3847 DATE SUBMITTED: 09/18/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2410
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3989 DATE SUBMITTED: 12/09/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979

III - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3990 DATE SUBMITTED: 12/09/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

S.Amdt. 3991 DATE SUBMITTED: 12/09/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

III - 6
Mike Lee, of Utah

SECTION IV. COSPONSORED AMENDMENTS

S.Amdt. 2626 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/08/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1845
SPONSOR: Sessions
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jan 09, 2014 Boozman, Lee, and Vitter

S.Amdt. 2654 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1846
SPONSOR: Heller
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee

S.Amdt. 2662 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/16/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3547
SPONSOR: Barrasso
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Enzi, Hatch, Heller, Inhofe, Lee, Risch, Flake, Crapo, and Hoeven

S.Amdt. 2682 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/16/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3547
SPONSOR: Flake
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Hatch, Lee, and Alexander

S.Amdt. 2683 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/16/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3547
SPONSOR: Flake

IV - 1
Mike Lee, of Utah

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Hatch and Lee

S.Amdt. 2690 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/16/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1846
SPONSOR: Heller
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee

S.Amdt. 2700 DATE SUBMITTED: 01/28/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1926
SPONSOR: Heller
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
To clarify that any private flood insurance policy accepted by a State shall satisfy the mandatory purchase
requirement under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Jan 29, 2014 S.Amdt. 2700 proposed by Senator Heller.
Jan 30, 2014 Considered by Senate.
Jan 30, 2014 S.Amdt. 2700 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 49 - 50. Record Vote Number:
18.

S.Amdt. 2722 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/06/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1845
SPONSOR: Sessions
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Boozman, Grassley, and Vitter

S.Amdt. 2762 DATE SUBMITTED: 02/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 1982
SPONSOR: Coburn
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
McCain, Burr, Lee, and Flake

IV - 2
Mike Lee, of Utah

ADDED COSPONSORS:
Feb 27, 2014 Johnson of Wisconsin

S.Amdt. 2852 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/13/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. Res. 376
SPONSOR: Shaheen
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
To strike the quotation from the United States Agency for International Development regarding educated
women.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Kirk and Lee
STATUS ACTIONS:
Mar 13, 2014 S.Amdt. 2852 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Shaheen.
Mar 13, 2014 S.Amdt. 2852 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.Amdt. 2858 DATE SUBMITTED: 03/25/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2124
SPONSOR: Johnson, of WI
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Cruz, Inhofe, Vitter, Sessions, Cornyn, Barrasso, and Lee

S.Amdt. 2890 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2149
SPONSOR: Inhofe
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
McConnell, Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Blunt, Vitter, Hoeven, Crapo, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn,
Cruz, Flake, Isakson, Johnson of Wisconsin, Moran, Risch, Scott, Shelby, Enzi, Cochran, Lee,
Johanns, Roberts, Wicker, Boozman, Burr, and Graham

S.Amdt. 2901 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
SPONSOR: Inhofe
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
McConnell, Cornyn, Thune, Barrasso, Blunt, Vitter, Crapo, Chambliss, Coats, Coburn, Cruz, Flake,
Isakson, Johnson of Wisconsin, Moran, Risch, Scott, Shelby, Enzi, Cochran, Lee, Johanns,
Roberts, Wicker, Boozman, Burr, Graham, and Hoeven

IV - 3
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Amdt. 2917 DATE SUBMITTED: 04/01/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
SPONSOR: Sessions
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Grassley, Lee, Vitter, Enzi, Boozman, and Hatch

S.Amdt. 2991 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/06/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2262
SPONSOR: Hoeven
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Landrieu, McConnell, Murkowski, Begich, Portman, Pryor, Johnson of Wisconsin, Heitkamp,
Wicker, Warner, Crapo, Donnelly, Thune, Walsh, Johanns, Manchin, Blunt, McCaskill, Alexander,
Tester, Inhofe, Hagan, Flake, Roberts, Chambliss, Enzi, Toomey, Lee, Sessions, Scott, Coats,
Cornyn, Kirk, Isakson, Grassley, Rubio, Fischer, Coburn, McCain, Corker, Hatch, Cochran,
Barrasso, Vitter, Risch, Boozman, Burr, Graham, Heller, Paul, Moran, Cruz, Shelby, Ayotte, and
Collins

S.Amdt. 3066 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/14/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 15, 2014 Johanns

S.Amdt. 3067 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/14/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 15, 2014 Johanns

IV - 4
Mike Lee, of Utah

S.Amdt. 3068 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/14/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee
ADDED COSPONSORS:
May 15, 2014 Johanns

S.Amdt. 3110 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: Flake
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, Toomey, McCain, Lee, and McConnell

S.Amdt. 3111 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: Flake
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, McCain, Lee, and McConnell

S.Amdt. 3145 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: Flake
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, McCain, Lee, McConnell, and Coburn

S.Amdt. 3146 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: Flake
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.

IV - 5
Mike Lee, of Utah

ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, Toomey, McCain, Lee, McConnell, and Coburn

S.Amdt. 3155 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee

S.Amdt. 3156 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee

S.Amdt. 3157 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: McCain
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Coburn and Lee

S.Amdt. 3170 DATE SUBMITTED: 05/15/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3474
SPONSOR: Toomey
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee and Flake

S.Amdt. 3412 DATE SUBMITTED: 06/26/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2410
SPONSOR: Feinstein

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

S.Amdt. 3520 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/09/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
SPONSOR: Enzi
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Barrasso, Risch, Crapo, Murkowski, Lee, and Hatch

S.Amdt. 3521 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/09/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2363
SPONSOR: Enzi
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee and Thune
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 10, 2014 Barrasso

S.Amdt. 3632 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/24/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2569
SPONSOR: Thune
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Toomey, Ayotte, McCain, Roberts, Rubio, Cruz, Lee, and Flake
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 29, 2014 McConnell

S.Amdt. 3633 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/24/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2569
SPONSOR: Thune
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Toomey, Ayotte, McCain, Enzi, Blunt, Roberts, Rubio, Cruz, Lee, Flake, and Fischer

IV - 7
Mike Lee, of Utah

ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 29, 2014 McConnell

S.Amdt. 3636 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/24/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2569
SPONSOR: Thune
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Toomey, Roberts, Lee, Flake, and Collins
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 29, 2014 McConnell

S.Amdt. 3656 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/24/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2569
SPONSOR: Hatch
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Alexander, Ayotte, Barrasso, Blunt, Burr, Coats, Coburn, Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Enzi, Flake,
Grassley, Isakson, Johanns, Lee, McCain, Portman, Roberts, Rubio, Thune, Toomey, Graham,
and Scott
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 29, 2014 McConnell

S.Amdt. 3720 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/30/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2648
SPONSOR: Cruz
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Sessions, Vitter, Inhofe, Lee, Johanns, and Boozman
ADDED COSPONSORS:
Jul 31, 2014 Alexander

S.Amdt. 3819 DATE SUBMITTED: 09/16/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: S. 2410
SPONSOR: Hatch
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ADDED COSPONSORS:

IV - 8
Mike Lee, of Utah

Sep 18, 2014 Lee

S.Amdt. 3844 DATE SUBMITTED: 09/18/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.J. Res. 124
SPONSOR: Ayotte
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee and Cruz

S.Amdt. 3996 DATE SUBMITTED: 12/10/2014


SUBMITTED FOR: H.R. 3979
SPONSOR: Feinstein
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
No Statement of Purpose on File.
ORIGINAL COSPONSORS:
Lee, Paul, Udall of New Mexico, Cruz, Whitehouse, Collins, Coons, Roberts, Franken, Enzi,
Heinrich, Kirk, Rockefeller, Klobuchar, Markey, Nelson, and Merkley

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.

As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and


Consumer Rights, Senator Lee worked closely with Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) to
oversee mergers and competition issues that affect Utahns. In February, the committee
held a hearing to examine competition in the wireless market. In April, the committee
held a hearing on the merger of the two largest cable TV providers, Comcast and Time
Warner Cable, identifying several areas of concern. In June, the subcommittee looked
into the merger of AT&T and DirecTV to analyze its impact on the video market. The
subcommittee held a hearing in September to question whether the pricing policies of
contact lens manufacturers was anticompetitive. Senator Lee will continue to oversee
competition issues as Chairman of the subcommittee in the new congress.

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.

Bills and Amendments

Legislation

-S. 517-Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (Original


Cosponsor)
-S. 1410-The Smarter Sentencing Act (Lead Cosponsor)
-S. 1535-Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Cosponsor)
-S. 1675-Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act (Cosponsor)
-S. 2048-Encouraging Trade and Investment from New Zealand Act (Lead Cosponsor)
-S. 2073-A bill to prohibit the intentional discrimination of a person or organization by an
employee of the IRS (Cosponsor)
-S. 2127-Inspector General Empowerment Act (Sponsor)
-S. 2159-Restoration of America’s Wire Act (Original Cosponsor)
-S. 2218-Subnational Visa Waiver Program Act (Lead Cosponsor)
-S. 2782-A bill to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States (Cosponsor)

Notable Judiciary Hearings Attended

-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

Lee, Tester Introduce Bill to Ensure Proper


Investigations at DOJ
WASHINGTON – Today, Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jon Tester (D-
Mont.) introduced legislation to increase transparency and accountability at
the Department of Justice. The Inspector General Empowerment Act
would eliminate a problem in the law that requires allegations of attorney
misconduct at DOJ to be investigated by an agency that reports directly to
the Attorney General rather than the autonomous Office of the Inspector
General. The bill would remove this obvious conflict of interest and grant
the OIG complete jurisdiction throughout the department. Senators
Grassley and Murkowski are also original cosponsors.

“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.”

A report just released by the Project on Government Oversight revealed


that the Office of Professional Responsibility, the agency overseen by the
Attorney General, documented more than 650 instances of misconduct, yet
details on if and how these cases were handled are not available to the
public.

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.

“Placing this responsibility under the OIG increases government


transparency and ensures that instances of abuse will be handled in a
timely and responsible manner,” Lee added.
May 23 2014

Klobuchar, Lee Call for Review of AT&T’s


Proposed Acquisition of DirectTV
In letter, Senators urged the Department of Justice and
Federal Communications Commission to assess the
impact that the proposed merger could have on
consumers, including price, choice, and quality of
service
Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike
Lee (R-UT) today sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding AT&T’s
proposed acquisition of DirectTV. In the letter, the Senators urged
the DOJ and FCC to assess the impact that the proposed merger
could have on consumers, including price, choice, and quality of
service. Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer
Rights, and Lee, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, will
hold a hearing to examine the potential acquisition this summer.

“This proposed transaction would result in additional consolidation in


the market for pay television and may impact consumer welfare in
that market and other markets in which the companies operate,” the
Senators said in the letter. “As always, the key to analyzing any
merger should be the effect it will have on consumers, including
price, choice, quality of service, and innovation.”
The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Assistant Attorney General Baer and Chairman Wheeler:

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on


Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, we write
regarding AT&T’s proposed acquisition of DirecTV. This proposed
transaction would result in additional consolidation in the market for
pay television and may impact consumer welfare in that market and
other markets in which the companies operate. For example, the
companies currently compete with each other in 25 percent of the
country, including in 10 of the top 20 markets. In addition, this
merger, taken together with the recently announced merger between
Comcast and Time Warner Cable, could potentially affect future
innovation and technological advances, including the availability of
online video distribution.

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.

As you review this transaction, we believe it is important to validate


and weigh these efficiencies against the potential competitive harms
that could result from the transaction. As always, the key to
analyzing any merger should be the effect it will have on consumers,
including price, choice, quality of service, and innovation.

We plan to hold a Subcommittee hearing this summer to examine


the important issues raised by this proposed merger and will follow
up with you based on the evidence and testimony reviewed during
that process. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sep 15 2014

RELEASE: Lee & Durbin: According to CBO,


Smarter Sentencing Bill Would Reduce Prison
Costs by More Than $4 Billion
Funding reinvested in law enforcement and crime
prevention priorities would make communities safer
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) and
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) announced today that their bill to modernize
nonviolent drug sentencing policies would reduce prison costs in America
by $4.36 billion over 10 years, according to a new report compiled by the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

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.

With federal prison populations skyrocketing and approximately half of the


nation’s federal inmates serving sentences for drug offenses, the Smarter
Sentencing Act would give federal judges more discretion in sentencing
those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.

“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.

The bipartisan Durbin-Lee bill is an incremental approach that does not


abolish any mandatory sentences. Rather, it takes a studied and modest
step in modernizing drug sentencing policy by:

• Modestly expanding the existing federal “safety valve”: Our


legislative “safety valve” has been effective in allowing federal
judges to appropriately sentence certain non-violent drug offenders
below existing mandatory minimums. This safety valve, however,
only applies to a narrow subset of cases. The Smarter Sentencing
Act would modestly broaden criteria for eligibility. This change, which
only applies to certain non-violent drug offenses, is supported by
nearly 70% of federal district court judges.

• Promoting sentencing consistent with the bipartisan Fair


Sentencing Act: The bipartisan Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 –
which was authored by Senator Durbin and unanimously passed the
Senate before it was signed into law – reduced a decades-long
sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses.
Unfortunately, because of the timing of their sentences, some
individuals are still serving far-too-lengthy sentences that Congress
has already determined are unjust and racially disparate. The
Smarter Sentencing Act allows certain inmates sentenced under the
pre-Fair Sentencing Act sentencing regime to petition for sentence
reductions consistent with the Fair Sentencing Act and current law.
Federal courts successfully and efficiently conducted similar crack-
related sentence reductions after 2007 and 2011 changes to the
Sentencing Guidelines. More information on the Fair Sentencing Act
of 2010 can be found here.

• Increasing individualized review for certain drug sentences:


The Smarter Sentencing Act lowers certain drug mandatory
minimums, allowing judges to determine, based on individual
circumstances, when the harshest penalties should apply. The Act
does not repeal any mandatory minimum sentences and does not
lower the maximum sentences for these offenses. This approach
keeps intact a floor at which all offenders with the same drug-related
offense will be held accountable but reserves the option to dole out
the harshest penalties where circumstances warrant. These changes
do not apply to penalties for violent offenses.

The bipartisan Smarter Sentencing Act is supported by faith leaders from


the National Association of Evangelicals to the United Methodist Church. It
is supported by groups and individuals including Heritage Action, Justice
Fellowship of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Major Cities Chiefs Association,
the ACLU, Grover Norquist, International Union of Police Associations, the
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, more than 100 former
prosecutors and judges, the NAACP, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys,
the Sentencing Project, American Conservative Union, Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF), the Council of Prison Locals, Ralph Reed, Open
Society Policy Center, American Correctional Association, the American
Bar Association, National Black Prosecutors Association, the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence, Families Against Mandatory Minimums,
Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the Constitution Project.
2014 Annual Report- Defense,
National Security, and Foreign
Relations
Senator Lee believes that one of the highest priorities of the United States
government is to secure the freedoms and liberties of U.S. Citizens. He was an active
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2014, sitting on the Strategic
Forces, Readiness and Management, and Personnel Subcommittees. The committee
addressed many issues vital to U.S. national security in 2014, including the ongoing
impacts of the sequestration of the defense budget, the threats developing from terrorist
groups in the Middle East, and the drawdown of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan.

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.

Senator Lee continued to champion the preservation of U.S. sovereignty against


the growing incursion of international laws and organizations. He opposed the UN Arms
Trade Treaty (ATT) and was a leader in blocking the ratification of the UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He also continued his bipartisan work to give
our nation’s defenders the necessary intelligence tools they need to address national
security threats while responsibly preserving the constitutionally guaranteed rights and
civil liberties of American citizens.

Bills and Amendments

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.

-An Amendment to strike provisions from the NDAA in committee that


authorized the Department of Defense to train and lethally equip members of the
Syrian authorization. Senator Lee believed this was too important of a strategic
decision and risky issue to be authorized behind closed doors in a classified
setting. His amendment was defeated in the Armed Services committee and
blocked on the Senate floor.

-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)

Senate Armed Services Committee

Notable Senate Armed Services Hearings Attended

-Testimony on recent changes to U.S. Military Retirement System, Deputy


Secretary Christine Fox and Admiral James Winnefeld; January 28, 2014.
-Testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the National Security of
the United States, Director James Clapper and General Michael Flynn; February
11, 2014.
-Testimony on U.S. Strategic Command and Cyber Command Defense
Authorization Request, Admiral Cecil Haney and General Keith Alexander;
February 27, 2014.
-Testimony on Defense Authorization Request for FY 2015, Secretary Chuck
Hagel and Chairman Martin Dempsey; March 5 2014.
-Testimony on the situation in Afghanistan, General Joseph F. Dunford; March
12, 2014.
-Testimony on Army Active and Reserve force mix in review of the Defense
Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2015, General Ray Odierno, General Frank
Grass, General Jeffrey Talley; April 8, 2014.
-Testimony on the Posture of the Department of the Air Force in review of the
Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2015, Secretary Deborah Lee
James and General Mark Welsh; April 10, 2014.
-Classified Briefing on the Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, Deputy
Secretary Robert Work, Admiral James Winnefeld, Mr. Stephen W. Preston,
Assistant Secretary Michael Lumpkin, Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael
Dumont, General Robert P. White; June 10, 2014.
-Classified Testimony on the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary Chuck
Hagel and General Martin Dempsey; July 8, 2014.
-Testimony on U.S. policy towards Iraq and Syria and the threat posed by the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); September 16, 2014.

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

F-35 Maintenance Hangar Funding Finalized for


Hill Air Force Base
On February 26, I learned that both the Senate and House have approved
funding for the construction of a new maintenance hangar at Hill Air Force
Base for the F-35 stealth fighter jet. Operational maintenance will be
performed inside the hangar by the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill. The
funding was originally included in the 2014 National Defense
Appropriations Act, but was removed in the Omnibus Bill. As a member of
Senate Armed Services Committee I pushed to allow and approve the
Department of Defense to reprogram funding needed for this construction. I
was joined in this effort by Senator Hatch and Congresman Bishop to also
pressure the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the House Armed
Services Committee, and the House Appropriations Committee to
reprogram this funding. Now that all relevant committees have approved
the reprogramming of funding, the U.S. Air Force can begin construction
on the complex.

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

Honoring a Utah Veteran

On Tuesday the 27th of May,


the staff in my St. George
office hosted an awards
ceremony for Sidney Ingram
(Ski). LTC Anderson
conducted the ceremony
along with SGT Larsen and
SGT Ogden of the SFC US
Army 222. They presented
Ski with three ribbons he had
earned during the Vietnam War.

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

Lee: President's Syria Proposal Raises Security


Questions
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee said Obama’s announcement
to expand support to Syrian rebels raises serious security questions
regarding the composition of Syrian opposition forces and the ability of the
United States to ensure that terrorist groups do not have access to U.S.
assistance.

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.

“The situation in Syria is desperate and we should be constantly assessing


it for threats to U.S. security, but I am concerned that sending American
weapons and training into this crisis could be like pouring gas on a fire,”
Lee stated. “When senior members of the president’s national security
team cannot guarantee that assistance won’t fall into the hands of our
enemies, or that the people we train today won’t be fighting alongside al-
Qaeda tomorrow, we should be very careful in considering approaches that
could assist extremists in that conflict.”

Following the March 6 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S.


Central Command (CENTCOM), CENTCOM Commander General Lloyd
Austin stated in an answer for the record:

“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:

“Well, they are an agreement of convenience, I would say. Oftentimes,


these groups will apparently – which are quite fluid, by the way – may
disagree ideologically, but will, if it’s convenient for them in a tactical
context, agree to work together.”

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

Lee Announces Town Hall for Military


Community and Veterans
SALT LAKE CITY – Senator Lee announces an
upcoming town hall meeting that will focus on
the needs of Utah’s veterans and military
community. The event will be held on August,
26 at 7:30 – 9:00 p.m. At the Ed Kenley
Centennial Amphitheater in Layton.

"As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have an


important responsibility in guiding the actions Congress takes to maintain
the capabilities of our armed forces to provide for our national defense,”
Lee explains. "I also have the responsibility to ensure that we provide
veterans who have served the country with the benefits and recognition
that they deserve. The feedback I receive from those who are part of the
military community is crucial in helping me effectively fulfill these
responsibilities.”

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

Senator Lee Questions Clapper on Whereabouts


of Syrian Assistance
I had the opportunity today to question intelligence and military leaders on
threats to national security. I am greatly concerned with America's
involvement in Syria, and our assistance to rebels could be used by
terrorist groups that are targeting the United States. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper confirmed to me that the Al-Nusra organization
and other extremist groups operating in Syria harbor desires to attack the
United States, and that these extremist groups are working with the
moderate groups that the United States is assisting. Director Clapper did
not know the whereabouts of U.S. assistance that had been captured by
extremists in Syria last year, nor did he know if any American aid is being
utilized by terrorist groups. I think Americans would agree that terrorist
organizations with intentions of attacking the United States should not be
able to access or benefit from assistance paid for by the American
taxpayer. If the administration cannot guarantee that U.S assistance in
Syria is not getting into the hands of terror organizations, the assistance
pipeline must be shut.
 

Sep 10 2014

Top  Obama  Administration  Officials  Raise  


Questions  about  Arming  Syrian  Rebels  
Earlier this year, during hearings of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I had the chance to ask CENTCOM Commander General
Lloyd Austin and the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about
the risks of arming and assisting rebel groups in Syria. Their responses
were very troubling. As the president shares his plan for how to address
national security threats in the Middle East, I hope to find his plan takes
into account the concerns raised by these high-ranking official.
2014  Annual  Report  –  Energy  and  
Natural  Resources  
 
As  a  member  of  the  Senate  Energy  and  Natural  Resources  Committee  
(Committee)  and  Ranking  Member  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Water  and  Power,  
Senator  Lee  has  applied  his  conservative  and  Constitutional  principles  to  issues  
related  to  public  lands,  energy  development,  water  use,  and  other  issues  subject  to  
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Committee.    
 
I. Bills  
 
In  2014,  Senator  Lee  sponsored  and  supported  legislation  to  unlock  our  
domestic  natural  resources,  limit  the  impact  of  regulatory  overreach,  and  support  
local  communities.  Senator  Lee  also  continued  to  fight  for  bills  he  introduced  in  the  
first  session  of  the  113th  Congress,  which  are  not  included  below  but  can  be  found  in  
Senator  Lee’s  2013  Annual  Report.    
 
In  addition  to  these  bills,  Senator  Lee  has  sponsored  or  introduced  many  other  
bills,  including:  
 
-­‐ EPA  Employment  Analysis  Act    (S.2161)  –  a  bill  to  require  the  EPA  to  
consider  the  employment  impacts  of  any  proposed  rule  or  regulation.    
-­‐ Sage  Grouse  Protection  and  Conservation  Act  –  a  bill  to  provide  for  a  10-­‐
year  delay  in  the  consideration  of  the  proposed  listing  of  the  Greater  Sage  
Grouse.    
-­‐ Protecting  Water  and  Property  Rights  Act  of  2014  –  a  bill  to  prohibit  the  
EPA  from  finalizing  the  “Waters  of  the  United  States”  rulemaking.    
-­‐ Endangered  Species  Litigation  Reasonableness  Act  –  a  bill  to  limit  tax-­‐
payer  funded  awards  to  litigious  environmental  groups  under  the  
Endangered  Species  Act.  
-­‐ Endangered  Species  Recovery  Transparency  Act  –  a  bill  to  require  the  
Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  disclose  the  costs  associated  with  litigation  under  
the  Endangered  Species  Act.    
-­‐ CASE  Act  –  a  bill  to  prohibit  the  EPA  from  lowering  its  existing  national  
ambient  air  quality  standards  until  at  least  85%  of  counties  that  are  in  non-­‐
attainment  have  attained  the  standard.  This  bill  would  ensure  that  the  EPA  
does  not  impose  irrational  ozone  regulations.    
-­‐ A  resolution  to  disapprove  a  rule  of  the  EPA  relating  to  greenhouse  gas  
emissions  
-­‐ A  resolution  expressing  the  sense  of  the  Senate  regarding  the  EPA  and  
the  proposed  rules  and  guidelines  relation  to  carbon  dioxide  emissions  
from  power  plants  
-­‐ National  Park  Access  Act  –  a  bill  to  require  the  National  Park  Service  to  
reimburse  states  for  their  role  in  keeping  certain  National  Parks  open.    
-­‐ American  Energy  Renaissance  Act  –  a  comprehensive  energy  package  that  
would  address  a  host  of  energy  issues,  including:    
o Support  exports  of  oil  and  natural  gas  
o Approval  of  the  Keystone  Pipeline  
o Requires  the  development  of  an  oil  shale  leasing  program  
o Establishes  each  state  as  the  primary  regulator  of  hydraulic  
fracturing  
o Imposes  a  phase-­‐out  of  the  renewable  fuels  standard  
o Numerous  other  policies  intended  to  achieve  energy  security  
 
-­‐ BLM  Permit  Processing  Improvement  Act  –  a  bill  to  direct  a  new  user  fee  
to  certain  BLM  field  offices  for  the  specific  purpose  of  assisting  in  the  
processing  of  BLM  permits  to  drill.    
 
-­‐ These  bills  are  in  addition  to  those  introduced  in  2013,  the  first  session  
of  the  113th  Congress.  Bills  introduced  in  2013  did  not  need  to  be  
reintroduced  in  2014.  Please  see  2013  Annual  Report  for  a  complete  
picture  of  Senator  Lee’s  energy  and  natural  resource  priorities.    
 
II. Important  Hearings  in  2014  
 
-­‐ U.S.  Crude  Oil  Exports:  Opportunities  and  Challenges  
-­‐ Importing  Energy,  Exporting  Jobs:  Can  it  be  reversed?  
-­‐ Keeping  the  Lights  On  –  Are  we  doing  enough  to  ensure  the  reliability  
and  security  of  the  US  electric  grid?    
-­‐ Breaking  the  Logjam  at  the  BLM:  Examining  Ways  to  More  Efficiently  
Process  Permits  for  Energy  Production  on  Federal  Lands  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

May 08 2014

Western Caucuses Urge EPA to Halt “Waters of


the US" Rule
Members  warn  federal  takeover  of  state  water  will  hurt  job  
growth,  negatively  impact  farms,  small  businesses,  commercial  
development,  road  construction  and  energy  production.  
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. –Today, Senator Mike Lee joined Senate Western
Caucus Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) and Congressional Western
Caucus co-chairs Stevan Pearce (R-NM) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and
42 other Caucus Members in sending a letter to Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy.

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.

In addition to Barrasso, Pearce and Lummis, the letter was signed by


Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK),
Dean Heller (R-NV), Mike Lee (R-UT), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Orrin Hatch (R-
UT), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Roy Blunt (R-AR), Jerry
Moran (R-KS), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Cornyn (R-TX), John Hoeven
(R-ND), Mike Johanns (R-NE), James Risch (R-ID) and Mike Enzi (R-WY)
and Representatives Rob Bishop (UT-01), Markwayne Mullin (OK-01), Jeff
Denham (CA-10), Mike Simpson (ID-02), Don Young (AK-AL), Walter
Jones (NC-03), Matt Salmon (AZ-05), Scott Tipton (CO-03), Mike Conaway
(TX-11), Mark Amadei (NV-02), Cory Gardner (CO-04), Jeff Duncan (SC-
03), Chris Stewart (UT-02), Paul Gosar (AZ-04), Tom McClintock (CA-04),
Kevin Cramer (ND-AL), Devin Nunes (CA-22), David Schweikert (AZ-06),
Randy Neugebaurer (TX-19), Raul Labrador (ID-01), Kristi Noem (SD-AL),
Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Trent Franks (AZ-08), Paul Broun (GA-10), Mike
Coffman (CO-06), Jason Chaffetz (UT-03).

The full text of the letter:


May 8, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy


Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator McCarthy,

As members of the Senate and Congressional Western Caucuses, we are


contacting you regarding our opposition to the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) efforts to significantly expand federal regulatory authority
under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

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.

There has been strong opposition to EPA’s approach due to the


devastating economic impacts that a federal takeover of state waters
would have. Additional and substantial regulatory costs associated with
changes in jurisdiction and increased permitting requirements will result
in bureaucratic barriers to economic growth, negatively impacting farms,
small businesses, commercial development, road construction and energy
production, to name a few.

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 share the concerns expressed by the Western Governors Association


regarding the lack of meaningful state consultation in crafting this rule. The
Western Governors stated in a letter to you on March 25th that they –

“are concerned that this rulemaking was developed without sufficient


consultation with the states and that the rulemaking could impinge upon
state authority in water management.”

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.

Congress has demonstrated strong opposition to past efforts to have the


federal government control all wet areas of the states. During the recent
consideration of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a
bipartisan group of Senators voted 52 to 44 to reject the EPA’s CWA
Jurisdiction Guidance, which would have also resulted in effectively
unlimited jurisdiction over intrastate water bodies. Efforts to pass
legislation to have the federal government control all non-navigable waters
have also failed in past Congresses.

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jun 11 2014

Lee Urges Senate to Address the Threat of


Western Wild Fires

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee sent a letter to Senator Mary


Landrieu, Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, urging the Committee to promptly schedule oversight hearings
to review federal wildland fire management activities and address the
threat of catastrophic wildland fire in the West. Senator Lee expressed
grave concerns about the ability of the Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Forest Service to protect public safety during what is projected to
be a severe and destructive wildfire season.

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.”

These oversight hearings represent the crucial first step in advancing


“national forestry, rangeland, and watershed management reforms that will
reduce wildland fire risks through more active management.”
Jul 17 2014

Lee Introduces Bill to Reduce Costs of Federal


Infrastructure Projects

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill that would


drive down the inflated costs of federally funded construction projects on
our nation’s infrastructure and makes it easier for federal contractors to
train and employ workers of all skill levels. The “Davis-Bacon Repeal Act”
would also save the American people billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer
money and diminishe the power of the cronyist alliance between big
government and big labor unions.

“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.”

Forcing the American citizens to subsidize labor unions in this way


artifically inflates the costs of construction projects to repair and improve
our national infrastructure. This is unfair, and unsustainable, and costing
taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Senator Lee’s “Davis-Bacon
Repeal Act” removes these government-imposed obstacles to economic
opportunity facing low-skilled workers and returns wasted taxpayer dollars
back into the hands of the American people. Senator Lee will offer the bill
as an amendment to legislation that addresses the funding of our nation's
highway and transportation systems.

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

Senate to Vote on Lee's Transportation Reform


 
WASHINGTON – Today, the full Senate agreed to include Senator Mike
Lee’s proposal to reform transportation funding in a package of
amendments on the Highway Trust Fund. The “Transportation
Empowerment Act” would allow states to keep the vast majority of revenue
each raises through the gas tax, making it easier and more effective for
communities to develop the transportation system they want and need.

“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.

“Under this new system, Americans would no longer have to send


significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where politicians, bureaucrats,
and lobbyists take their cut before sending it back with strings attached,”
Lee added. “Instead, states and cities could plan, finance, and build
smarter and more affordable projects.”

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.

“Americans know we need more roads, bridges, lanes, and mass-transit


systems. My plan will not only allow local communities to develop
infrastructure projects according to their own needs and values, but will
allow their dollars to go further by cutting out the political middle-men in
Washington. Properly planned and located, these projects would help
create new jobs, new communities, more affordable homes, shorter
commuting times, and greater opportunity for businesses and families,”
said Lee.

Lee’s stand-alone bill (S.1702) has been cosponsored by Senators Rubio,


Cruz, Roberts, and Johnson, while a House companion (HR3486)
introduced by Rep. Tom Graves has 49 cosponsors.
 
 
Jan 02 2014

Utah Public Land, PILT, Dry Washes, and


Navigable Waterways
On December 17, I appeared on The County Seat. Chad Booth and I had a
great discussion about HB 148, and the fight to reduce excessive federal
government ownership of public land in Utah. We also discussed how to
improve the PILT program. We explored how some stakeholders are more
equal than others when it comes to the excessive litigation that constantly
surrounds any attempt to utilize public lands. We also, unfortunately, had
to discuss whether a dry wash can be defined as a navigable waterway for
purposes of federal regulation. In addition to these Utah-specific issues, I
also had the chance to explain the conservative reform agenda that I have
been promoting in Washington over the last few weeks.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Jan 16 2014

Lee, Hatch Push to Restore Funding for PILT


program
PILT Funding Compensates Utah Communities for Loss of
Property Tax Revenue Due to Federally-Owned Lands in
the State
WASHINGTON – Utah’s U.S. Senators
Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch are supporting
an amendment to the Omnibus
government funding bill introduced by
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that would
fully fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program. The amendment, which
is paid for by reducing US spending on
overseas programs, would provide $421
million for PILT in Fiscal Year 2014. Local governments receive federal
payments under the PILT program to help compensate for the loss of
property tax revenue due to non-taxable federal lands within their
boundaries.

“More than 60 percent of the land in Utah is owned by the federal


government, which means that communities across the state cannot collect
property taxes to help fund basic community needs,” Hatch said. “PILT
ensures that Utahns have access to the services they need even though
the federal government owns such a significant amount of land in our state.
Utah’s county commissioners have repeatedly stressed to me how
important the PILT program is, and I sincerely hope this fight to fully fund
this necessary program is successful.”

"For many counties in Utah, these PILT payments represent a large


percentage of annual budgets,” said Lee. “Police, schools, and
infrastructure maintenance all rely heavily on these payments. The failure
to fund this program in a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill is simply stunning.
That failure is precisely why I am cosponsoring this amendment which
would cut wasteful programs and fully fund PILT."

In addition to Hatch and Lee, the Barrasso amendment was cosponsored


by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Inhofe (R-
OK), James Risch (R-ID), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and John
Hoeven (R-ND).

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:

• U.S. Contributions to the Global Environment Facility (GEF)-


$143.75 million
• U.S. Contributions to the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) - $184.63
million
• U.S. Contributions to the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) - $49.9
million
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change - $10 million
• Sustainable Landscape programs in the bilateral economic
assistance through the economic support fund - $32.72 million.

The GEF is an international financial institution that receives U.S.


contributions to help address global climate change and other
environmental issues.

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

Lee Introduces Bill to Expand Higher Education


Opportunities
HERO Act makes post-secondary education more
affordable and accessible
WASHNGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee introduced legislation that
would expand higher education opportunities for low-income and middle-
class families by providing for new alternatives to the federal accreditation
system. The Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act would allow all
50 states and the District of Columbia to develop their own systems of
accrediting educational institutions, curricula, apprenticeships, programs,
and even individual courses. All accredited programs would be eligible to
receive federal student loan money.

“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:

The Higher Education Reform and Opportunity (HERO) Act

• Authorizes states to create an alternative, state-run process for


accreditation, providing the state with the same authority as the
Secretary of Education has in selecting the institutions eligible to
participate in Title IV funding.
• Allows States to accredit any institution, that provides postsecondary
education (courses or programs) that can be applied to a degree,
credential or professional certification, including:
o Institutions of Higher Learning (Colleges/Universities);
o Non-profit Organizations;
o For-profit Organizations or Businesses; and
o Postsecondary apprenticeship programs.
• Requires States to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of
Education prior to creating their own process for
accreditation. These agreements would include:
o The designation of one or more accrediting entities within the
State;
o The standards/criteria that an institution must meet in order to
become accredited and maintain accreditation;
o The appeals process for an entity that is denied accreditation;
o The State policy regarding the transfer of credits;
o The agreed upon reporting requirements, which may include:
§ The number of students who successfully complete
each course or program;
§ The number of students who successfully obtain their
certification, credential or degree;
§ Job placement for individuals who had obtained their
certification, credential or degree;
§ How often the agreed upon reports will be submitted to
the Secretary; and
§ Any requirements for third-party verification of the
information in the reports.
o The State policy regarding public access to information related
to State accredited programs and entities;
o An assurance by the State that it will only accredit institutions
offering postsecondary education courses or programs that
provide credits toward a postsecondary certification, credential
or degree;
o A clear statement of the State’s definition of a postsecondary
certification, credential and degree;
o A description of the agreements the State will enter into with
institutions accredited under this system;
o A description of how the State will select institutions for
accreditation under this system; and
o A description of how the State plans to administer Title IV
funds for institutions it accredits under the alternative
accreditation system.
• Assists States in covering the administrative and reporting costs
associated with the alternative accreditation system in the same
manner that assistance is currently provided to institutions of higher
education.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mar 12 2014

Lee Introduces Head Start Reform


Bill Would Improve the Ability of State and Local
Officials to Meet the Needs of Low-Income Children
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee introduced legislation to reform
the early childhood education program known as Head Start. The Head
Start Improvement Act is intended to produce better results by offering
states and parents greater flexibility to tailor the program to meet the
specific needs of low-income children. A 2012 study by the Obama
administration showed that, despite spending $8.6 billion per year on
education, health, nutrition, and other services, the program produced no
lasting benefits.

“Underprivileged children need access to good education, and the scientific


evidence shows the federal government does a lousy job of providing it,”
Senator Lee said. “Education reform should empower principals, teachers
and parents, instead of centralizing power and money in political
bureaucracies. This bill would allow states, communities, schools, and
families to better tailor pre-K programs to the specific needs of each
eligible child.”

Confronted with the obvious failures of government programs, many states


are already looking at ways to better serve their low-income
populations. For example, the Utah state legislature has created a special
task force to study the prospects of “charity care” – affordable medical
services for poor families provided not by government but by individuals,
businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities.

“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:

• Provides Head Start block grants directly to eligible grantees, which


include states, territories and federally recognized Indian tribes.
• Restores the responsibility to each recipient grantee to define what
entities within their state would be eligible to receive sub-grants;
award sub-grants to those eligible entities; establish rules and
standards for the entities awarded sub-grants; and monitor
compliance with state rules and standards
• Eligible grantees receive an allotment of the Head Start funds in
proportion to the number of children aged 5 and younger from
families with incomes below 130% of the poverty line residing within
their State.
• Eligible grantees must provide a 20% match to all Federal Head
Start funds granted, consistent with current law.
• All funds must be used for prekindergarten education, administration
of the programs, and to provide direct technical assistance,
oversight, monitoring, research and training.

What it Does:

• Puts more money in the classroom instead of the Washington


bureaucracy
• Gives states and local officials and parents greater control over
improving the Head Start program
• Ensures the program will better serve the interest of low-income
families with young children
Apr 01 2014

Lee Files Amendments to Create Jobs, Make


Higher-Ed More Accessible, and Improve Work-
Life Balance
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee filed three amendments to a
Senate bill being considered this week that would extend the time people
have to collect unemployment insurance beyond six months. The
amendments continue Senator Lee’s push to enact solutions to problems
in the Obama economy by focusing on job creation, accessibility of higher
education and training, and improving work-life balance.

The first amendment is modeled after Sen. Lee’s Transportation


Empowerment Act (S. 1702) and would significantly reduce the
administrative and regulatory burdens the federal government places on
states’ use of transportation funding. Under this proposal, states could
respond more quickly to the needs of citizens, start and finish projects
sooner, and spend less money to complete them – all while creating and
maintaining good jobs.

“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 second amendment is built on Sen. Lee’s Higher Education Reform


and Opportunity Act (S. 1904), legislation that would open up new
educational opportunities for many low-income and non-traditional
students. The bill allows states to set up a new and parallel system for
accrediting educational institutions, curricula, apprenticeships, programs,
and even individual courses, which are then available to receive federal
student loan money.

“In today’s economy, employers need individuals with specialized skills,”


said Senator Lee. “But the current accreditation system – which drives up
costs and leaves behind many non-traditional students, like working
parents – acts as a barrier for millions of Americans who need the
education and training to fill those jobs. This amendment would make
higher education and training more accessible and affordable to those who
need it most.”

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

Lee Plans to Offer Amendment to End Comp-


Time Discrimination Against Private-Sector
Employees
Reid’s Abuse of the Process Leaves Amendments in
Limbo
WASHINGTON – When the Senate moves to the Fair Pay Act, Senator
Mike Lee plans to propose an amendment that would give private-sector
employers the ability to offer their employees the option of compensation
time or overtime pay.

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.”

The amendment, modeled on Lee’s “Working Families Flexibility Act,”


would help workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by
allowing private-sector employers to offer all individuals who work overtime
to choose between monetary compensation or comp-time through a written
agreement. The reform would maintain all existing employee protections,
including the current 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual, and provide
additional safeguards to ensure that the choice to use comp time is
voluntary.

“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

Lee Introduces Free-Market Energy Reform


WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee introduced a bill that restores
free-market competition to America’s energy sector by eliminating all tax
credits for both renewable and traditional energy sources. The “Energy
Freedom & Economic Prosperity Act” also reduces tax rates to ensure no
new burdens are added to the responsible development of America’s
energy resources. Sen. Lee’s bill is a companion to legislation originally
sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo in the House, which has 34 cosponsors.

“Washington should not be using taxpayer money to pick winners and


losers in the energy industry,” said Lee. “Consumer-driven, free-market
competition provides a much better way to ensure Americans have access
to reliable, affordable energy. The Energy Freedom and Economic
Prosperity Act would level the playing field for all energy producers, forcing
them to compete for consumer dollars rather than political favors.”

Congressman Mike Pompeo said: “American families shouldn’t have to


subsidize energy companies when they’re having trouble enough paying
their utility bills. Companies should have customers, not political patrons.
With Sen. Lee’s leadership in the Senate on this important measure, we
can eliminate insider deals on energy policy and save money for families
across the country.”

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

Lee Introduces Regulatory Reform Bill

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Lee introduced a bill that reforms our


nation’s regulatory system by creating a regulatory budget process
designed to measure, and set an upper limit on, the costs that federal rules
and regulations impose on the economy each year. The “Regulatory Cost
Assessment Act” brings transparency, accountability, and discipline to the
system by requiring Congress to reclaim from the executive branch the
responsibility for the effects and costs of regulations on the private sector.

“Reforming our federal regulatory regime is one of the greatest challenges


facing our country today,” said Sen. Lee. “Each year thousands of rules
and regulations, issued by the alphabet soup of federal agencies in
Washington, D.C., cost our economy nearly $2 trillion. These costs are
borne by businesses – large and small – trying to comply with all the red
tape, but ultimately they’re passed on to the American people, in the form
of lower take-home pay, fewer jobs, and higher costs of goods and
services.”

“Right now, the main reason our regulatory system is so onerous and
expensive,” Lee said, “is that regulations are issued by bureaucrats in the
executive branch who will never be held to account for their decisions by
the American people. This bill takes an important step toward solving that
problem by making Congress directly accountable for the regulatory costs
each federal agency can impose on the economy.”

 
 
 
 
 
Feb 12 2014

The  Welfare  Reform  and  Upward  Mobility  Act  


The Welfare Reform and Upward Mobility Act addresses deep problems in
the federal government’s welfare programs that make it more difficult for
low-income Americans to work their way into the middle class and stay
there. This bill would get existing federal welfare programs under control
and would help the working poor transition from poverty to opportunity and
security.

How it works:

• Strengthens work requirements for all able bodied, work-capable


adults receiving SNAP benefits.

o 36 hours per month for individuals without dependents;


o 72 hours per month for individuals or couples with
dependents;

• Incentivizes states to comply with work requirements through a


phased–in performance measurement system.
o Rewards states with a grant equal to ¼ of the savings
o Penalizes states by diminishing funding over time for not
meeting requirements

• Requires the federal government to report all means-tested welfare


spending, including state and local governments, and report
estimated levels over the next decade

• Phases in a cap on total means-tested welfare spending that is


adjusted yearly with inflation
o Phased in to 2007 levels over 3 years
What it does:

• Restores and improves work incentives for individuals and families


• Improves state administration of welfare programs
• Incentivizes states to transition beneficiaries from welfare to work
• Creates greater transparency in means-tested welfare spending
• Saves $2.5 trillion over 10 years

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sep 24 2014

Leading  Conservatives  Welcome  Lee-­‐Rubio  Tax  Plan  


Senators’  plan  has  “great  promise,”  and  seen  as  
“excellent  start”  
Yuval Levin: “[T]he general outline is a very pro-growth reform of the
business tax code alongside a version of the pro-growth and pro-
family reform of the individual tax code …” (Yuval Levin, Op-Ed, “The
Next Conservative Tax Reform,” NRO, 9/23/14)

• Levin: “In terms of both policy and politics, this combination of


business and individual tax reforms would seem to have great
promise.” (Yuval Levin, Op-Ed, “The Next Conservative Tax
Reform,” NRO, 9/23/14)
• Levin: “[T]he approach they lay out seems like a plausible general
outline for the next conservative tax reform.” (Yuval Levin, Op-Ed,
“The Next Conservative Tax Reform,” NRO, 9/23/14)

Reihan Salam: “The good news is that a small number of elected


conservatives, led by Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio, have been pointing the ways towards a GOP worth
supporting.” (Reihan Salam, Op-Ed, “How Corporate Tax Reform Can
Combat Crony Capitalism,” NRO, 9/23/14)

• 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)

• Pethokoukis: “Republicans Mike Lee and Marco Rubio have


sketched out an ambitious tax reform plan to boost business
spending and increase take-home pay for America’s beleaguered
middle-class families.” (James Pethokoukis, “Lee and Rubio offer
smart, modern tax reform,” AEI, 9/24/2014)
• Pethokoukis: “The senators have fashioned a pro-growth, pro-family,
pro-innovation plan rooted in economic and political reality that
deserves serious consideration as a key element in any agenda for
reenergizing the American economy.” (James Pethokoukis, “Lee and
Rubio offer smart, modern tax reform,” AEI, 9/24/2014)
• Pethokoukis: “But developing a real-world tax reform plan — one
that boosts family incomes, makes American companies more
competitive, invests in human and business capital, simplifies the
code, increases GDP growth, and achieves revenue neutrality
without unrealistic assumptions — is tricky business. The Lee and
Rubio plan — at least as outlined — already ticks a lot of those
boxes.” (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)

• ATR): “ATR is supportive of three important components of


their proposed tax plan.” (Jesus Rodriguez, “Rubio-Lee Tax
Reform Plan Good for Growth, Good for Families,” ATR, 9/23/14)
• “ATR supports reducing the business tax rate. … ATR supports
Rubio and Lee’s full expensing tax relief proposal. … ATR supports
Rubio and Lee’s territorial taxation proposal.” (Jesus Rodriguez,
“Rubio-Lee Tax Reform Plan Good for Growth, Good for Families,”
ATR, 9/23/14)

YG Network: “Simplifying the tax infrastructure to just two income


tax brackets—15% and 35%—would eliminate unfair deductions.
[link]” (YG Network, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

• YG Network: “Eliminating the marriage and parent tax penalties will


help hard working American families gain an economic foothold.
[link]” (YG Network, Twitter, 9/23/2014)
• YG Network: “We need pro-family, pro-growth tax reform that
benefits working middle-class families. [link]” (YG Network, Twitter,
9/23/2014)

Ramesh Ponnuru: “The result of this reform would be a simpler


business tax system, more investment in the U.S. and less corporate
debt.” (Ramesh Ponnuru, “Obama Is Inverted on Inversions,” Bloomberg,
9/23/2014)

Steve Forbes: “Senators Lee and Rubio propose something closer to


a #FlatTax [link]” (Steve Forbes, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: “[G]ood start …” (Larry Kudlow, Twitter,


9/23/2014)

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)

Tax Foundation’s Andrew Lundeen: “Plenty to like in the Rubio/Lee


business tax reforms: [link]” (Andrew Lundeen, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

American Council for Capital Formation’s Margo Thorning: “Senator


@marcorubio & @SenMikeLee's #taxreform plan will spur US
investment…” (Margo Thorning, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

YG Network’s April Ponnuru: “Very important piece by [Sens. Mike


Lee and Marco Rubio]. Conservatives can and should be pro-growth
AND pro-family. [link]” (April Ponnuru, Twitter, 9/23/2014)
Real Clear Politics’ Nicholas G. Hahn III: “Spot on …” (Nicholas G.
Hahn III, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Vance Ginn: “How to provide pro-


growth tax reform. The general direction of a flatter national income
tax rate is wise. [link]” (Vance Ginn, Twitter, 9/23/2014)

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)

• Medved: “Radical and very encouraging …” (Michael Medved


Interview with Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee, “The Michael
Medved Show,” YouTube, 9/23/2014)
• Medved: “One of the things I love Senator Rubio is this follow on to
some previous, very imaginative, very dynamic anti-poverty
proposals that you have put on the table.” (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.

In the afternoon, attendees dispersed into industry


specific roundtable discussions. The goal of these
roundtables was to bring together representatives of
businesses and industries to discuss the regulatory
burden under which they are required to comply.
Participants were asked to bring their most burdensome
regulations to the summit as well as potential solutions
they would like put into place to address these problems.

Roundtable Discussions

v Real Estate & Commercial Construction


v Banking & Finance
v Technology, Entrepreneurship, & Small
Business
v Healthcare, Medical Devices, &
Pharmaceuticals
v Transportation
v Energy, Natural Resources, & Public Lands

Mr. Wayne Crews, an expert from the


Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington,
DC, provided a presentation on federal regulation
for those attendees that did not participate in the
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

Keeping the Relationship Strong between My


Office and Utah's State Government
As Utah’s 45-day legislative session ends, I want to commend the
Legislature, Governor Herbert, Lieutenant Governor Cox, Attorney General
Reyes, and the countless Utahns who played an active role in this process.

I believe that maintaining a strong relationship between my office and our


state government is crucial. For this reason, I sent my mobile office to hold
regular hours at the State Capitol during every day of the legislative
session. Several hundred Utahns—elected officials, advocates, families,
and countless students—interacted personally with me and my staff at our
mobile office, which was a few feet from the Capitol Rotunda. I received
valuable feedback from those who engaged with us, and I also received
important insight into many important issues facing our state and our
country.

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.

I am also excited that two members of the Utah House of Representatives


have now officially joined my full-time staff here in Utah. Representative
Derek Brown (Sandy/Cottonwood Heights) will be my new Deputy Chief of
Staff, and Representative Ryan Wilcox (North Ogden) will be my new
Northern Utah Director. Many of you know these two former legislators,
and they will be invaluable in helping me stay aware of the issues that
matter most to you.

It was also a pleasure to directly address our Legislature in mid-February,


where I was able to discuss many aspects of the conservative reform
agenda. Many of the proposals I have introduced as part of this agenda
would decrease the role played by bureaucracies in Washington, and shift
that role to the state of Utah, so that we can craft a “Utah solution” to Utah
problems. I am proud as I watch our state legislators—year after year—
balance our budget and live within our means.

During the remainder of 2014, my mobile office will continue to travel


throughout Utah to make it easier for you to access me and my
staff. Please sign up to receive alerts so that you know when my mobile
office is near your home. In addition to visiting our mobile office when it is
in your city, please feel free to call, e-mail or write to me at any time with
your comments, questions, and ideas so that I may continue to represent
our Utah values and Utah solutions to my colleagues here in the Senate.
Mar 28 2014

Staying Connected to Southeastern Utah


Utah Association of Conservation Districts – March 25, 2014

The Utah Association on Conservation Districts is an organization of


political subdivisions of the State of Utah that are responsible for identifying
land improvement projects, as well as mitigating natural hazards. My staff
attended the Zone 7 annual meeting at the John Wesley Powell Museum in
Green River, Utah to hear the organization’s priorities for the coming year.
Zone 7 is comprised of five districts; Carbon, Green River, Price River, San
Juan, and San Rafael. Many Mayors and County Commissioners were in
attendance and it was a great opportunity to connect with these
hardworking local leaders.

United States Bureau of Land Management – March 26, 2014

My staff attended a briefing with the Bureau of Land Management state


office in Salt Lake City on March 26, 2014 where they discussed wild
horses, the status of developing projects, and the fire season outlook.
Attendees included BLM State Director Juan Palma. My staff in both my
Salt Lake City and St. George offices regularly visit with Director Palma
regarding constituent concerns. I am dedicated to helping Utahns
efficiently navigate their way through restrictive federal land management
rules and regulations. Relationships with agency directors help me assist
constituents with their frustrations in a more effective way.

Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments – March 27,


2014

The Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments is a group


consisting of Mayors and Commissioners of four Utah counties; Carbon,
Emery, Grand, and San Juan. This organization meets monthly in Price,
Utah to discuss budgets and prioritize projects they would like to see
funded. My staff attended this meeting to give an update about what I am
currently working on regarding public lands and natural resources. I
constantly seek the input of local governments when considering policies
that would affect public lands in Utah.
Apr 04 2014

Ending our Opportunity Crisis by Developing our


Abundant Natural Resources
Last week, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
favorably reported the nomination of Rhea Suh to be Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks to the full Senate, where her nomination will
soon come to a vote. I joined the other Republicans on the committee in
voting against her nomination not only because of concerns about her
experience and management abilities, but also because her nomination
reveals this administration’s continuing efforts to make responsible
development of natural resources difficult if not impossible.

For more than a decade Ms. Suh worked as a program officer at


organizations with a record of opposition to fossil fuels—the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. In a
2007 Hewlett Foundation newsletter, she said that "the pace and
magnitude of this [natural gas] development is easily the single greatest
threat to the ecological integrity of the West." Even leasing federal land for
resource extraction was a problem, she wrote, since it "precludes the
possibility of any protection.”

This quote represents a worldview that is far removed from the


mainstream. Many Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree that
increased energy development is in the best interests of the country.
Indeed, many in Congress also believe that the benefits of increased
energy development can reach beyond our borders and be a critical tool to
securing the interests of the United States and our allies abroad.
Democrats such as Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Udall of Colorado
have introduced bills that seek to significantly increase liquefied natural
gas (LNG) exports to other countries. But while Democrats seem to be
jumping on the bandwagon of energy exports, most Democrats refuse to
reform policies that actively prevent energy development. We cannot have
it both ways. We cannot export energy that we cannot access, cannot
develop, and cannot transport.

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.

A vote to confirm Rhea Suh is a vote against energy production. A vote


against energy production is also a vote against increased energy exports,
because you can’t export natural gas that is still in the ground. Ultimately,
the Republican proposals that I support would add nearly 2 million jobs to
the economy. Many of these jobs pay an average wage above
$30/hour. It is time to lift the artificial weights and burdens of government
that are preventing us from ending our opporunity crisis by developing our
abundant natural resources.
May 05 2014

Energy Tour of Utah


On April 15 and 16, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce organized a tour
for my staff of various energy facilities across the state. The following is a
list of the facilities that were visited:

Intermountain Power Plant (Delta, UT) -


Intermountain Power Plant in Delta, Utah is
a large coal-fire power plant with an
installed capacity of 1,900 MW. This plant,
owned by Intermountain Power Agency
and operated by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power,
generates power for thousands of homes
in California and is transmitted there by
way of the HVDC Intermountain
transmission line. While the generated
power ultimately leaves Utah,
Intermountain Power Plant provides a very
healthy property tax base for Millard
County. A member of my staff enjoyed a
toured the facility on Tuesday, April 15 with
various energy industry leaders, government officials, and interested
citizens.

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

Touring the Weber Basin Water Conservancy


District
On May 21, a member of my staff
participated in a tour of the Weber Basin
Water Conservancy District. The tour
began at Smith and Morehouse
Reservoir in Summit County where up to
1,360 acre-feet of water from runoff is
stored. This water eventually arrives at
the Weber Basin Water Conservancy
District's water treatment facility in
Layton, is processed, and then is piped to various municipalities in Weber
and Davis Counties.

Later on the tour, my staff got a chance to go


underneath the Wanship Dam, a dam that impounds
up to 62,100 acre-feet water from the Rockport Lake.
A tour such as this makes one truly appreciate the
clean water that is released from a faucet in one's
home or office. As a member of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee, I recognize that it
is crucial to maintain relationships with the stewards
of our water infrastructure.

 
Aug 12 2014

Lee, Herbert Host Utah Solutions Summit on


Improving America’s Regulatory Climate
Senator Tom Coburn (OK) to Deliver Keynote Address
SALT LAKE CITY - Senator Lee, Governor Gary Herbert, Salt Lake
Chamber, the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the Utah Association
of Counties will host a daylong solutions summit to discuss America’s vast
and uncertain regulatory burden that is hindering economic growth,
exacerbating unemployment, and making it harder for Utah businesses to
succeed. The summit will facilitate a discussion of regulatory compliance
issues states, communities, and businesses must deal with and offer a
number of solutions to improve America’s economy through regulatory
reform.

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.

The media is invited to attend the morning and lunch speeches, as


well as the panel discussions. There will be special seating for
reporters, along with access to Wi-Fi. Live blogging and tweeting are
encouraged. Following the lunch speech, media outlets will have special
access to the event speakers for one-on-one interviews.
 
 
Sep 03 2014

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.

Last November, I delivered a speech


about reducing poverty entitled, Bring
Them In. In this passage from the
speech I highlighted one of the
principles for reducing poverty that is
often forgotten in policy debates:

We usually refer to the free market


and civil society as “institutions.” But
really, they are networks of people
and information and opportunity. What makes these networks uniquely
powerful is that they impel everyone – regardless of race, religion, or
wealth - to depend not simply on themselves or the government, but on
each other. For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition,
our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community
and cooperation.

In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matter your career
or your cause, your success depends on your service. The only way to get
ahead is to help others do the same. The only way to look out for yourself
is to look out for your neighbors.

As I toured Switchpoint, I was convinced that their model that relies


primarily on the institutions of civil society is a model that policies that are
intended to reduce poverty need to follow. The institutions of government
had a small role to play in helping Switchpoint secure their building. One
of their innovations of the facility is to designate an area where 17 non-
profit partners and local government agencies can be available to those
who visit the facility. The bulk of the effort that is utilized to run this facility
is provided by volunteers. Local organizations of contractors and local
businesses donated materials and labor for renovating and modernizing
the facility. Another group donated computers that can be used by those
who visit the facility to search for work, fill out forms and paper work,
participate in job training programs, and develop new skills. Religious
groups donated crucial resources and volunteers as well.

Computer Kiosks for Donated Computers

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.

Learning About Kitchen Volunteer


Program

I was certainly impressed by


Switchpoint's innovative approach
to making poverty more
temporary, but I was not surprised
to see this innovation coming from
from my fellow Utahns. This is
why as part of my Conservative
Reform Agenda, my proposals
that are designed to provide opportunity and upward mobility to those who
are struggling focus primarily on shifting power from Washington DC to the
states, local governments, and local communities that can truly make a
difference to those they serve.

Americans need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty agenda that not only


corrects – but transcends – existing policies, and I believe Switchpoint is
an organization that proves we can meet this challenge.
Sep 10 2014

South Korea Honors Utah's Veterans of the


Korean War
Today members of staff from my office were invited to attend a ceremony
in the Utah State Capitol Building to honor 181 of the 17,000 Utahns who
fought in the Korean War. They were presented with the South Korea
Ambassador for Peace Medal.
Sep 18 2014

A Framework for Reforming PILT


Today I attended a conference hosted by the National Association of
Counties to discuss the importance and future of Payment in Lieu of Taxes
funding. I appreciated the opportunity to speak to this group, so I could
share my thoughts on how we can ensure that a disproportionate share of
the costs and burdens of federal land ownership aren't concentrated in
counties with high levels of federal land.

In my remarks to this group I identified several areas that we need to focus


on as we work together to improve the PILT program and make it more
reliable for the counties that rely on the federal government to keep its
promise to offset the costs associated with high concentrations of federal
land.

I emphasized that PILT is not an entitlement program. It is an affirmative


obligation of the federal government. It must not be legislatively partnered
with subsidies or other entitlements, because, as we have seen, PILT is
being used as a politcal football. I will continue to work toward funding
PILT as either a standalone bill or any other vehicle where Congress can
focus on fully funding PILT with a long term bill that provides certainty to
counties.

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

Senator  Lee  Honors  WWI  Vet  


On October 15, I was honored to present the family of World War I veteran,
Encarnacion Trujillo, with several high honor awards for his service prior to
September of 1939, during a ceremony at the Salt Lake City Veteran's
Cemetery.

Encarnacion's daughter, Yvonne Shields, contacted my office with


information proving that he took shrapnel to the shoulder during his
service, which she believed earned him a Purple Heart. After submitting
the documents to the United States Army, we learned that in addition to the
Purple Heart, Trujillo had earned World War I Victory Medal with Muse-
Argonne Battle Clasp and France Service Clasp, the World War I Victory
Button-Silver and the Lapel Button.
While this remembering by our nation has been slow in coming, As
Encarnaction Trujillo would be 119 years old, I sense that he would be
pleased at recieving this Purple Heart Medal today. Like so many of his
generation he didn’t fight so his name would appear in the newspaper or
be recorded in a history book, he fought so his children could pursue their
dreams and write their own histories in a land of freedom and opportunity.

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

Senator Lee Holds First “Classroom Townhall”


Event with Independence H.S. of Provo, Utah
Today I spoke, via Skype, with a group of students from Independence
High School of Provo, Utah, and their U.S. Government teacher, Mr. David
Miller. After spending a few minutes telling the students about the
legislative process in the U.S. Senate and explaining my constitutional
duties as an elected representative, we had an exciting conversation about
current events and policy hot topics that were of interest to the class.

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!

Skype Screenshot of Students

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

New School: A Plan for State-Based Accreditation


of Alternative Higher Education
We don’t need to dump our higher education system –
we just need to open it up to more students and teachers
The challenge of American higher education policy today is reconciling two
seemingly contradictory facts.

First, higher education is more important to economic opportunity and


middle-class security than ever before.

And second, the standard credential of higher education – the bachelor’s


degree – is being devalued by the diminishing quality and exploding costs
of undergraduate education.

How is it possible that higher education is becoming more valuable and a


bachelor’s degree less? Because they aren’t the same thing.

American workers need post-secondary knowledge and skills. But a four-


year (or five- or six-year) sojourn at a brick-and-ivy residential institution is
not the only way to get them. Indeed, it’s not the way that most Americans
get them.

There are vocational schools and professional training programs. There


are apprenticeships in the skilled trades. There are hybrid on-campus/on-
the-job models. There is the bourgeoning promise of distance learning
options, like Massive Open Online Courses.

Unfortunately, this innovative, alternative market is being hamstrung by


federal policy governing higher-education accreditation.
Under the federal Higher Education Act, students are eligible for Title IV
student loans and grants only if they attend formally accredited institutions.
That makes some sense, for purposes of quality control. Except that under
the law, only degree-issuing academic institutions are allowed to be
accredited. And only the U.S. Department of Education gets to say who
can be an accreditor.

That is, the federal government today operates a kind of higher-education


cartel, with federally approved accreditors using their gatekeeper power to
keep out unwanted competition.

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.

Most progressives think ever-more taxpayer assistance will make up for


any policy dysfunction. But we’ve tried that, and all we’ve done is inflate a
bubble.

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.

So last week, I introduced legislation to do just that.


The Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act would give states the
power to create their own, alternative systems of accrediting Title IV-
eligible higher education providers.

State participation would be totally voluntary, and would in no way interfere


with the current system. State-based accreditation would augment, not
replace, the current regime. (College presidents can rest assured that if
they like their regional accreditor, they can keep it.)

But the state-based alternatives would not be limited to accrediting formal,


degree-issuing “colleges.” They could additionally accredit specialized
programs, apprenticeships, professional certification classes, competency
tests, and even individual courses.

Nor would states be limited to authorizing traditional accrediting agencies.


Businesses, labor unions, trade associations, non-profit groups, and any
other applicant that met the state’s requirements could be empowered to
accredit.

Under state accreditation, higher education could become as diverse and


nimble as the job-creating industries looking to hire.

Authorized businesses could accredit courses and programs to teach


precisely the skills they need for their employees. Apple or Google could
accredit computer courses. Dow could accredit a chemistry program, and
Boeing could craft its own aerospace engineering “major.”

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.

Workers whose life circumstances make it impossible to take more than


one course at a time – single parents, perhaps, or those working two jobs –
could finally be eligible for Title IV funds.

Meanwhile, talented teachers could side-step time-consuming and esoteric


“publish or perish” research, and spend their careers in the classroom
instead. Groups of professors could form new business models, like
medical practices, and offer high-quality higher education for a fraction of
the cost of four years at a traditional university. Finally competing on a
level playing field, new options like MOOCs could finally find their markets.
Institutions of civil society could play a role, too. Non-profit groups like the
U.S. Historical Society, the Sierra Club, or the Mayo Clinic could accredit
programs in their respective fields, or even competency-measuring exams
for various courses.

Think of the proliferation of opportunities. Faith communities and civic


organizations could begin to offer accredited courses, for next to nothing,
as part of their missions. Qualified individuals could make teaching higher
education their form of community volunteering.

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).

Everything we know about education and professional training in our


diversifying economy says it’s time to decouple Title IV eligibility and
enrollment at degree-issuing institutions. There are too many valuable
opportunities and invaluable people the current policy excludes.

My bill begins that process. How might it help?

In state-accredited higher education markets, alternative providers would


have to price-compete with their traditional and alternative competitors.
Among other benefits of quality and efficiency, disciplined pricing would
mean students might need loans of hundreds of dollars, instead of tens of
thousands.

Providers will have to market their teaching excellence – only the best
teachers will earn their keep.

They will have to build up their brand reputations quickly – so they’ll be


conspicuously transparent about their students’ success and employment
rates and income levels, probably with third-party verification. That will give
providers enormous incentive to help their students truly learn, as those
who can’t won’t stay in business.

As the alternative market establishes student/customer-friendly standards


for pricing, quality, and transparency, traditional colleges will face tough
questions about rigor, transfer credits, and student success.

Less-competitive colleges in particular, with weak academics and


scandalous graduation rates, will have to step up or go under.

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 housing alternative accreditation in the states accomplishes three


conservative goals at once. It will protect policy innovation from the
monolithic cronyism that inevitably infects centralized power. It will allow
competitive federalism to work its magic, as neighboring states check one
another’s imprudence and inaction. And, finally, it will preserve and reward
what does work at today’s colleges and universities.

It is wrong to say America’s higher education system has “failed.” It has


succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation. Our best colleges are the
best colleges anywhere – that’s why students from around the world come
here to study.

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.

Those Americans need access to skills that current colleges aren’t


teaching, at prices that four-year residential institutions can’t afford, on
timelines the academic calendar can’t accommodate. And the lower a
student’s income, the greater the need.

In today’s customizable world, students should be able to put their


transcripts together a la carte – on-campus and online, in classrooms and
offices, with traditional semester courses and alternative scenarios like
competency testing – and assistance should follow them at every stop
along the way.
We don’t need to dump our higher education system – we just need to
open it up to more students and teachers.

So instead of eliminating our current accreditation regime, my bill would


simply allow 50 new ones to compete with it, and each other – with enough
quality control to protect students and taxpayers, and enough flexibility to
incentivize experimentation and innovation.

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

To create jobs, promote access to opportunity via


human networks
Like most Americans, I support the ability of individuals to collect
unemployment insurance for a limited amount of time. But in order to start
solving the problem of long-term unemployment, this debate has to begin
addressing the president’s broken policies that are making it more difficult
to find work.

By historical standards, employment should be returning to the U.S


economy at a much faster rate. On average, it took just over two years to
recoup every lost job in each recession following the Great Depression.
But five years after the 2008 recession began, the Obama recovery still
has fewer jobs than before the downturn. In particular, private-sector job
growth has lagged, creating an Obama “job gap” of more than 4.5 million
jobs, according to the Joint Economic Committee.

By repeatedly supporting policies that have killed jobs and rejecting


proposals that would have created them, the president has forced more
Americans to need unemployment insurance for longer periods of time.
The administration’s “solution” is to just keep people trapped in these
programs without doing anything about the causes of long-term
unemployment.

The truth is that government policies are causing long-term unemployment,


creating barriers for low-income Americans to work their way into the
middle class, locking millions of Americans in poverty traps, and preventing
families who are barely making it from getting ahead. These policies
unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged
families can take toward social mobility and economic security.

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.”

In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is and what


government ought to do about it. Lincoln knew that true poverty was not for
most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity.

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

The farm bill vs. America


The farm bill Congress just passed Tuesday is a monument to Washington
dysfunction, and an insult to taxpayers, consumers and citizens.

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.

But those reforms aren’t in the bill we passed.

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.

Here’s how it works.

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.

In Utah, it’s 63 percent of the land. In Daggett County, it’s 81 percent. In


Wayne, it’s 85 percent. In Garfield, it’s 90 percent — 90 percent of their
land isn’t theirs.

To compensate, local governments for the tax revenue Washington unfairly


denies them, Congress created the PILT program, which stands for
Payment In Lieu of Taxes. Under PILT, Congress sends a few cents on the
dollar out West every year to make up for lost property taxes these
communities might otherwise collect.

Local governments across the western United States completely depend


on Congress making good on this promise.

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.

I cannot be a part of it. And I have encouraged my colleagues to recognize


that there is another way, a better way, a new approach that remembers
what, and who, we’re supposed to really stand for.

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.

It’s time to have a serious debate about a permanent solution to federally


owned lands that can improve economic opportunity and mobility while
reducing the deficit. And despite all the evidence in this farm bill to the
contrary, I believe we are still capable of finding that solution.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mar 25 2014

It will be our ideas that win in 2014


With things shaping up to be a positive year for Republican candidates,
conventional wisdom in Washington says that the best thing conservatives
can do is nothing. That our strategy should be to sit on our hands, keep our
heads down and let President Obama’s failures preserve a Republican
majority in the House and win one in the Senate.

But conventional wisdom in Washington, as usual, is dead wrong. That


counsel is unworthy of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and unequal to the
task before us.

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.

The important task before conservatives now is to redefine our movement,


rebuild our party and rescue our nation. Conservatives have faced this very
challenge before, nearly four decades ago.

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.

And so Ronald Reagan called for a new Republican Party, and


conservatives went about the hard, heroic work of applying timeless
principles to timely problems. Those in the establishment never knew what
hit them.

In 1976, anti-establishment conservatives found a leader for the ages —


yet they still lost. By 1980, they had developed an agenda for their time —
and they won. It’s time to do it again.

An agenda for our time must meet the challenge of our time — and of this
generation. That challenge is America’s growing opportunity deficit.

We see this opportunity deficit at the bottom of our economy, where


dysfunctional welfare policies trap poor families in poverty. We see it in the
middle class, where Washington drives up the costs of gas and groceries,
homes and health care, of raising kids and getting a good education. And
we see it at the top, where political and corporate elites rig the system to
benefit themselves at the expense of small businesses and working
families.

Taken together, these challenges represent America’s real problem of


inequality: not the income gap between the rich and the poor, but the
opportunity gap between Washington, D.C., and everybody else.

There are conservative solutions to these problems, but those solutions


are not coming from the Washington establishment.

A new generation of conservative ideas must come from a new generation


of conservative leaders, and for the first time in a long time, they are.

We have concrete, specific proposals to help lower-income families


overcome welfare, improve education and job training, and rescue at-risk
communities with too few jobs, too few fathers and too little hope.

We have solutions to end cronyist privilege and corporate welfare, to close


the Beltway Favor Bank, and put America’s political and corporate elites
back to work for the rest of us.

And we have introduced legislation to rescue America’s working families


from the middle class squeeze, to make it more affordable to raise and
educate their kids and afford health insurance and a home of their own.
We have an agenda. And contrary to the establishment’s advice, we’re not
hiding it from the media or the American people. It’s time for the
Republican Party to stop talking about Ronald Reagan and start acting like
him.

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.

Together, this new generation of reform conservatives can revive our


movement, rebuild our party and restore opportunity to our neighbors and
prosperity to our nation.
 
 
Apr 07 2014

Ex-Im Bank and the GOP’s Cronyism Test


Republicans should take a stand against corporate
welfare
For five years now, the Republican party has attackedthe economic
policies of President Barack Obama as “crony capitalism.”

And with good reason.

From the stimulus to cash-for-clunkers, from the bailouts to cap-and-trade,


from Dodd-Frank to Obamacare, every name-brand initiative of the Obama
era has distorted public policy to privilege well-connected insiders and
elites at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

Republicans have slammed all this “corporate welfare” and “venture


socialism” for unfairly “picking winners and losers in the marketplace.” In
2012, for the first time, “crony capitalism” was even singled out for
condemnation in the Republican party platform.

The Right’s resistance to corporatism is a welcome development. Special-


interest favoritism represents a uniquely malignant threat to the economic,
political, and social ecosystem that makes America exceptional.

Policy privilege corrupts the free market by rewarding political connections


over competitive excellence. It subverts the rule of law by codifying
inequality. It undermines social solidarity by pitting citizens against one
another, twisting cooperative communities into rival special interests.

And even as cronyism poisons the moral credibility of our institutions of


democratic capitalism, it degrades the economic benefits those institutions
yield.

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.

Cronyist policies — from tax loopholes to regulatory advantages to direct


subsidies — deliberately tilt the playing field to keep those very firms down,
to bury them in red tape and slow their disruptive growth.

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.

Obamanomics has delivered record corporate profits but sagging middle-


class wages and an anemic, jobless recovery. It has promoted and
exacerbated inequality. It has isolated the poor and squeezed the middle
class.

It has also exposed the president’s party to extreme political vulnerability.

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.

Impossible? That’s what they said about earmarks.

Too radical a change? These are principles we already espouse.

Imagine a reformed Republican party seizing the moral high ground


against political corruption and economic dysfunction. Imagine its leaders,
advocating populist, free-market reforms to restore jobs, growth, and
fairness to the economy. Faster than you can say “TARP,” we could pin the
Left between their egalitarian facade and their elitist agenda, and force
them to choose between K Street and Main Street.
That Republican party could not only unify and excite conservatives, but
appeal to hardworking families in the purple and blue communities that
President Obama’s special-interest favoritism is leaving behind.

For three years now, Republican leaders have challenged anti-


establishment conservatives to come up with a viable plan to make
principled conservatism inclusive and popular — to grow our party into a
national majority.

Well, here it is.

The question is whether Republicans’ Obama-era opposition to policy


privilege has been sincere or situational.

One test will be this summer’s expiring congressional authorization of the


federal Export Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank exists to dole out taxpayer-
backed loan guarantees to help American exporters. Most of the benefits
go to large corporations that are perfectly capable of securing private
financing anywhere in the world.

In short, Congress allows the Ex-Im Bank to unnecessarily risk taxpayer


money to subsidize well-connected private companies. President Obama
himself called the program “little more than a fund for corporate welfare”
back in 2008, when total taxpayer exposure to Ex-Im Bank guarantees was
less than half its size today.

Whether the beneficiaries of particular Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees are


respected, successful companies like Boeing or crony basket cases like
Solyndra is irrelevant. Twisting policy to benefit any business at the
expense of others is unfair and anti-growth.

Whether congressional Republicans say so — and do something about it


— during the coming Ex-Im Bank debate will tell us a lot about what, and
who, the party really stands for in 2014 and beyond.
May 01 2014

Conservatives' Moment to Stand Against


Cronyism
Most Americans know that our revolutionary history began when a handful
of brave patriots tossed crates of tea into Boston Harbor to protest unfair
taxation. But what they might assume incorrectly is that our forefathers did
so in response to increased taxes.

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.

Today, it’s commonly known as “cronyism” and represents a uniquely


malignant threat to American exceptionalism.

Cronyism simultaneously corrupts our economy and our government,


turning both against the American people. It forces American families who
“work hard and play by the rules” to prop up, bail out, and subsidize elite
special interests that don’t. It empowers and enriches the few by
disenfranchising the many.

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.

But once profits depend on serving congressmen instead of customers, the


interests of the elite diverge from those of the nation.

Cronyism has created a warped economy, increasingly built on


connections instead of competitiveness. We see corporations posting
record profits and jaw-dropping gains among elites, but slow growth,
stagnant wages and limited opportunities for everyone else. Except, of
course, in the Washington, D.C. area, home to six of the ten wealthiest
counties in the United States.

That is not to say that anti-cronyism should be equated with – or descend


into – the cheap, ugly populism of class warfare. We want successful
Americans to succeed. All we ask is that they earn their success on a level
playing field, subject to the judgment of the market – as truly successful
Americans always have.

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.

There are complicated tax code carve-outs and loopholes, as well as


complicated regulations, which are all tools the government uses to collude
with big business to erect giant walls that guard against free-market
competition.

And then there is Obamacare, truly a cronyist virtuoso’s masterpiece.

The president’s signature achievement privileges certain corporations by


penalizing Americans who don’t buy health insurance from them,
subsidizes the purchase of those products, protects those corporations
from true price competition and market innovation, exempts special
interests like labor unions, government employees, and large corporations
from various mandates under the law, and may even guarantee those
corporations’ survival — even if they lose money — through an open-
ended taxpayer bailout.

Cronyist policies violate the conservative principles of free enterprise,


equality of opportunity, and the rule of law. It’s time we stand up for
economic fairness and fight back against special-interest privilege.

For three years now, establishment leaders have challenged anti-


establishment conservatives to accept political reality, engage the politics
of addition, and produce a viable plan to make principled conservatism
appealing and inclusive — to grow our movement into a majority.

Well, here it is: a commitment to economic fairness and competition at the


top of our economy to help restore jobs, growth, mobility, and opportunity
to the poor and middle class.

There is a direct line from our forefathers on Griffin’s Wharf in Boston


Harbor to where we stand today. They had the courage to challenge a
government that was too big and too intrusive, but also unfair. The result
was the creation of an America of, by, and for the people. Our challenge
today is to reclaim it.
May 05 2014

An Anti-Cronyism and Free-Market Agenda


Today America faces a large and growing Opportunity Deficit. Up and
down our once-flourishing economy, a new and unnatural sclerosis is
taking hold. For millions of working families of or aspiring to the middle
class, the American Dream is slipping out of reach.

This Opportunity Deficit presents itself in three principal ways: immobility


among the poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, where
families just can’t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top.

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.

That’s why they have already proposed a range of principled, positive


reforms to repair our welfare, prison, job-training, tax, energy, and
education systems.

But as crucial as this work is, it remains incomplete. Compounding lower-


income immobility and middle-class insecurity is America’s crisis of crony
capitalism, corporate welfare, and political privilege, in which government
twists public policy to unfairly benefit favored special interests at the
expense of everyone else.

From subsidies and loan guarantees to tax loopholes and protective


regulations, cronyist policies come in a variety of forms, but they all work in
the same way: making it easier for preferred special interests to succeed,
and harder for their competitors to get a fair shot.
In a cronyist economy, economic power is redistributed, not from the rich to
the poor, but from the politically disconnected to the politically well-
connected. Profits come from serving congressmen instead of customers,
and the innovation and opportunity that define free enterprise start to sag.

In such an economy, increasingly built on connections instead of


competitiveness, it’s no wonder we see record corporate profits and jaw-
dropping gains among elites, but slow growth, stagnant wages and limited
opportunities for everyone else.

Given the scope and consequences of America’s Opportunity Deficit the


only option for conservatives today is a clear and simple zero-tolerance
policy toward cronyist privilege of any kind.

With deep roots and powerful friends, the policies that contribute to
America’s Opportunity Deficit will certainly not fix themselves.

That’s why those same reform-oriented conservatives in Congress have


already begun to write and advocate for an anti-cronyist agenda—from
Rep. Paul Ryan’s work to strip special-interest privilege from the budget, to
Senator Rand Paul’s regulatory reform that would improve federal agency
accountability, and Rep. Mike Pompeo’s bill to end federal subsidies in the
energy sector.

I am also working with Senator Marco Rubio on a pro-family, pro-growth


tax reform proposal to eliminate special-interest privilege from the
corporate code and level the playing field for small and large businesses.

This new anti-cronyist Conservative Reform Agenda, while still a work in


progress, is an exciting development. For too long Republicans have been
complicit in the proliferation of cronyist policies. If we are to win back the
trust of the American people—and we must—a zero-tolerance policy
toward special-interest privilege has to be our starting point.

Moreover, eliminating cronyist privilege is essential to get the economy


growing again by creating opportunity and driving down the inflated costs
of many of the staples of middle class aspiration and security: housing,
education, health care, and child-rearing.

Anti-cronyist reform should never be confused with the cheap, ugly


populism of class warfare. We want successful Americans to succeed. All
we ask is that they earn their success on a level playing field, subject to the
judgment of the market – as truly successful Americans always have.

A conservative agenda to get right on cronyism will be good for the


economy, good for the country, and, above all, the right thing to do.
Jul 31 2014

How Our Broken Accreditation System Increases


College Costs
One of the most disheartening trends in America today is the steep and
relentless increase in the cost of higher education. As almost everything
else in our economy has gotten better and more affordable, tuition at public
four-year colleges has nearly quadrupled since 1982.

The hardest hit by these skyrocketing costs are middle-income families


who struggle to pay those prices out of pocket but don’t qualify for needs-
based assistance. Meanwhile, the changing economy is making post-
secondary education more important than ever.

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.

So far, the federal government’s only response to this catch-22 is to


marginally reduce the interest rate on student loans.

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 is a classic case of the regulated becoming the regulators. Expensive


degree-issuing colleges and universities get to decide who joins their elite
club, and they have a strong financial incentive to lock out new, more
affordable educational models that could be a better match for some
students.

This lack of competition is a primary driver of rising tuition, which gives too
many students an impossible choice—crippling debt or limited
opportunities.

We believe there is a better way.

We have introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act in


both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The HERO Act will
allow states to experiment with their own accreditation systems. Under our
plan, states could choose to accredit alternative education providers such
as apprenticeships, specialty schools, professional certifications, all the
way down to individual courses. This way, students who have been locked
out of the current system would be able to use federal student loans and
grants to gain access to the skills they need at lower prices on a schedule
that works for them.
Our reforms don’t touch the traditional accreditation system, which works
well for existing universities. It creates a new, parallel system that opens
doors for the millions of low- and middle-income and non-traditional
students the current system leaves behind.

Many would benefit from education alternatives to traditional brick-and-ivy


institutions, and we owe it to our students to give states the opportunity to
develop these options. The HERO Act is an important first step towards
ensuring that higher education is affordable and accessible and gives our
students the resources, skills and education to succeed.
Sep 23 2014

A Pro-Family, Pro-Growth Tax Reform


Two simple income-tax brackets: 15% and 35%. End
the marriage penalty and increase the child tax credit
Senator Mike Lee and Senator Marco Rubio

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.

Despite these dramatic changes, the policies and practices of Washington


remain stuck in the 20th century, leaving too many Americans unable to
access the enormous potential of this new era.

If we hope to realize a new American Century, many institutions and


government programs will need to be updated, reformed or replaced. Both
of us have spent a large portion of the year proposing such reforms.

Perhaps no function of the U.S. government is more antiquated and


dysfunctional than its tax system, so we are joining together to propose a
federal tax-reform plan that will remove obstacles to investment,
innovation, growth and opportunity.
The current tax code taxes too much, taxes unfairly, and conspires with our
outmoded welfare system to trap poor families in poverty, rather than
facilitate their climb into the middle class. Our reforms seek to simplify the
structure and lower rates. How? By consolidating the many existing income
tax brackets into two simple brackets—15% and 35%—and eliminating or
reforming deductions, especially those that disproportionately benefit the
privileged few at everyone else's expense.

In addition, our plan would eliminate the well-known marriage penalty,


which imposes higher taxes on married couples than if they had filed
individually. It would also take aim at another pernicious distortion—the
parent tax penalty—that is more prevalent, if less understood, even by its
victims.

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.

These reforms would eliminate double-taxation on investment, and enable


small businesses and startups to compete on a more level playing field
against entrenched incumbents, who for too long have profited from the
cronyist giveaways our plan would eliminate.

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

How to Fix Congress: Five Steps To Restore Trust,


Transparency, And Empowerment
After years of frustration and months of feverish work, the Republican
Party has finally won back the U.S. Senate, and with it, undivided control of
Congress. But no sooner had Tuesday night’s balloon drops hit the floor
than Republicans around the country – and especially in certain offices in
Washington, D.C. – faced that timeless question of election night winners:
Now what?

This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act
between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering
it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican
Congress, for two additional reasons.

First, there is the still-strained relationship between the G.O.P.’s


Washington establishment and its grassroots conservative base. And
second, the party establishment and consultant class chose to de-
emphasize Republican policy alternatives during the campaign. So despite
that strategy’s apparent success Tuesday night, our new majority cannot
claim a sweeping legislative mandate.

But this question needs to be answered, nonetheless. And soon.

As a frequent critic of my party’s strategic timidity - and as incoming


Chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, whose job it is encourage
bolder thinking and action - I thought it incumbent on me to offer some
concrete, early, and hopefully constructive suggestions about how the new
Republican Congress might be steered toward unity and success.
As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have
my own ideas about what our party’s reform agenda ought to be, and I will
spend most of the next two years advocating them.)

Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help


repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild
Congress’s reputation among the American people, and by extension
slowly restore the public’s confidence in the Republican Party.

1. Rebuilding Trust

The greatest challenge to policymaking today is distrust. The American


people distrust their government, and Congress in particular. For their part,
Washington policymakers seem to distrust the people. And almost as
pressing for the new majority, the distrust that now exists between
grassroots conservative activists and elected Republican leaders can be
particularly toxic.

Leaders can respond to this distrust in one of two ways. One option is the
bare-knuckled partisanship that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has
exhibited for the last eight years: twisting rules, blocking debate and
amendments, and systematically disenfranchising hundreds of millions of
Americans from political representation.

But this is no choice at all for the new Republican Majority. First, contempt
for the American people and the democratic process is something
Republicans should oppose in principle. Second, our new Senate majority
will be both ideologically diverse and temperamentally independent –
unlikely to be as docile and partisan as Senate Democrats have been. And
finally, the 2016 presidential primary campaign may include several
Republican Senators, whose incentives for differentiation in a crowded field
will make internal politics even harder to predict or control.

No, the new Republican majority has neither the institutional credibility nor
the cast of characters to expect backbenchers – let alone conservative
activists and groups - to unquestioningly follow orders. Rather than resent
or deny this fact, Republican leaders should embrace it. We should throw
open the doors of Congress, and restore genuine representative
democracy to the American republic.
No more “cliff” crises. No more secret negotiations. No more take-it-or-
leave-it deadline deals. No more passing bills without reading them. No
more procedural manipulation to block debate and compromise. These are
the abuses that have created today’s status quo – the status quo
Republicans have been hired to correct.

What too few in Washington appreciate – and what the new Republican
Congress must if we hope to succeed – is that the American people’s
current distrust of their public institutions is totally justified. There’s no
misunderstanding. Americans are fed up with Washington, and they have
every right to be. The exploitative status quo in Washington has corrupted
Americans’ economy and their government, and made its entrenched
defenders rich in the process.

This situation was created by both parties, but repairing it is now going to
fall to the Republican Party. It’s our job to win back the public’s trust. And
that can’t be done simply by passing more bills, or even better bills. The
only way to gain trust is to be trustworthy. I think that means we have to
invite the people back into the process, to give the bills we do pass the
moral legitimacy Congress alone no longer confers.

This openness should probably extend beyond the formal legislative


process to the strategy development process, too. Congressional
majorities too often approach their work on an ad hoc basis, bobbing like a
cork in a creek between reactive opportunism and institutional inertia. But
as we have seen in recent years, the leadership vacuums that kind of
passivity creates never stay unfilled.

Whatever one might think of their relative merits, recent strategic initiatives
led by congressional back-benchers - the “Cut, Cap, Balance” budget plan
in 2011, the filibuster letter on gun control in early 2013, the effort to
defund Obamacare last fall, and to an extent, even the “Gang of Eight”
immigration bill – all represented efforts to fill vacuums created by
Republican leaders’ reticence and inaction.

Rather than resist this new reality, the new Republican majority can use it
to our advantage.

Republican leaders should embrace a more open-source strategy


development model that includes everyone on the front end to avoid
confusion, suspicion, and division on the back end. The last four years
have repeatedly shown the folly of excluding anti-establishment
conservatives from strategy formation – bills pulled from the floor, intra-
Conference chaos, back-biting in the press.

Now, with the minority Democrats desperate to highlight such episodes,


Republican leaders have every reason to get out in front of every issue,
every major bill, every project, and get everyone on board before the train
leaves the station.

An excellent example of this kind of approach is that of Sen. Lamar


Alexander, likely incoming chairman of the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee. Sen. Alexander has made no secret of
wanting to do a major reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act.
He and his staff have quietly sounded out various higher-ed reform ideas
for over a year already. That’s a model all Republican decision-makers
should be following, starting immediately.

Inclusive legislative and strategy processes will come with tradeoffs, of


course. Leaders will have to surrender some of their institutional power.
Conservatives will have to be prepared to accept defeat – fair and square -
if our ideas cannot carry the day. Members will have to expose themselves
to inconvenient amendment votes. The results of some votes and the fates
of certain bills may prove unpredictable. But the costs of an open-source,
transparent process are worth it for the benefits of greater inclusion of
more diverse voices and views, and for the opportunity such a process
would offer to rebuild the internal and external trust necessary to govern.

2. Don’t Forget Cronyism

We’re going to be hearing that word, “govern,” a lot in coming weeks, as in,
“Now Republicans must show they can govern.” What is meant by this is
passing bills - quickly and with bipartisan support - and having them signed
into law, in order to show the country that Republicans can “get things
done.”

In this advice, there is much truth, and also a trap.

The truth is that, yes, Republicans should take every opportunity to reform
federal law wherever common ground with Democrats can be found. And if
good policy makes for good politics, as it usually does, so much the better.

But the trap is that Republicans in fact can’t “govern” from the House and
Senate alone — especially without a Senate supermajority. We can clearly
articulate our views and advance our ideas, and then see where we can
work with the president and congressional Democrats. But we have to do
these things in that order. We should find common ground that advances
our agenda, rather than let the idea of common ground substitute for our
agenda.

If we fail to grasp that, we will be drawn into advancing legislation that is


both substantively and politically counterproductive, and that sends the
wrong message to the public about our party. For instance, the easiest
bipartisan measures to pass are almost always bills that directly benefit Big
Business, and thus appeal to the corporatist establishments of both
parties. In 2015, this “low-hanging fruit” we’ll hear about will be items like
corporate tax reform, Obamacare’s medical device tax, patent reform, and
perhaps the Keystone XL pipeline approval.

As it happens, these are all good ideas that I support. But if that’s as far as
Republicans go, we will regret it. The GOP’s biggest branding problem is
that Americans think we’re the party of Big Business and The Rich. If our
“Show-We-Can-Govern” agenda can be fairly attacked as giving Big
Business what it wants – while the rest of the country suffers – we will only
reinforce that unpopular image.

Insofar as the pent-up K Street agenda includes good ideas, then by all
means let’s pass those pieces by huge margins and send them to the
president. But a new Republican majority must also make clear that our
support for free enterprise cuts both ways – we’re pro-market, not simply
pro-business. To prove that point, we must target the crony capitalist
policies that rig our economy for large corporations and special interests at
the expense of everyone else – especially small and new businesses.

In other words, Republicans should seek common ground between


conservative principles and the interests and needs of the general public,
not just between Washington Republicans and Washington Democrats.
And the search for that genuinely common ground will point to a lot of low-
hanging fruit too, even when it comes to the proper relationship between
government and business. We could pass legislation winding down the
Export-Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. We
could – and really, must - eliminate the taxpayer bailouts for big insurance
companies in Obamacare’s “risk corridors” program.

Or we could start to break up taxpayer subsidies for the energy industry or


large agribusinesses.
Anti-cronyism legislation is win-win for the G.O.P. It is good policy,
restoring growth and fairness to an economy that Big Government and Big
Business have rigged against the little guy. And it’s even better politics,
standing up for the middle class while pinning hypocritical Democrats
between their egalitarian talking points and their elitist agenda.

Taking on crony capitalism is a test of the political will and wisdom of the
G.O.P. To become the party of the middle class and those aspiring to join it
– our only hope for success in 2016 and beyond - we have to change more
than our rhetoric. The new Republican Congress does have to get things
done, but those things have to be for Main Street, too, not just Wall Street
and K Street. A big part of our “governing” test is whether we can stand up
to special interests. Leaders like Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling in the
House, and Marco Rubio and Jeff Sessions in the Senate have made the
fight against cronyism a point of emphasis – and it’s sure to be a theme in
the 2016 presidential primaries, too

This issue is reaching critical mass on the Right. And as I see it, it’s now a
political necessity, another one that we should embrace rather than resist.

In passing anti-cronyism bills, we can either achieve policy wins for


economic growth and opportunity. Or we can let the president explain in
his veto messages why taxpayers, whose take-home pay is stagnant,
should be subsidizing corporations, whose profits have never been higher.
That’s a brand-changing debate Republicans can win.

3. Keep it Simple on the Budget

The biggest strategic and legislative question the new Republican


Congress will face in 2015 is what we should do on the Budget.

The procedural and political realities of the Budget process demand that, in
an era of divided government, it highlight the contrasts between the two
parties. (Unless, like the Democrats, you ignore federal law and just don’t
do a Budget at all, the better to conceal your true beliefs from the public.)

Come the spring, House and Senate Republicans have to pass a common
Budget Resolution for the fiscal year starting next fall. The Budget’s
privileged process allows for its passage in the Senate with only 51 votes –
which in all likelihood will mean 51 (hopefully 54!) Republicans and no
Democrats. This step must be fulfilled to begin the so-called reconciliation
process, under which Congress can fast-track a single fiscal reform bill
later on – again with only 51 Senate votes.

It’s such a complicated process, and such a delicate political balancing act
that to succeed, the Republican establishment and conservative grassroots
should come to an agreement very early on the broad parameters of what
the Budget must entail.

Arguing over specific spending levels, cuts, programs, and reforms at this
point is probably unwise. Rather, we should try to agree on a handful of
principles that all Republicans can agree on and not try to have the budget
alone substitute for everything Congress needs to do.

The three most obvious Republican consensus principles – to me, anyway


- are that our budget should:

1. Balance within ten years (without accounting gimmicks),

2. Not raise taxes, and

3. Repeal Obamacare.

These goals comprise the closest thing our party has to a mandate in the
wake of this election, and my guess is that every House and Senate
Republican is already on record supporting them.

If we want to avoid an ugly establishment-grassroots battle next spring,


Republican leaders and Budget Committee leaders would do well to reach
out to all wings of the party to get buy-in on a framework like this, and only
then begin the sausage-making.

There are rumors around Capitol Hill that some Republicans don’t want to
repeal Obamacare in the budget process. They would prefer to pursue
something else – corporate tax reform, for instance – where bipartisan
cooperation may be more attainable. They want to use budget
reconciliation to “get a win.”

But this has things backwards, it seems to me. President Obama and
many Democrats have already voiced some support for corporate tax
reform. Any plan that could get the president’s signature wouldn’t need to
be done via reconciliation, because such a bipartisan compromise could
easily get 60 votes in the Senate. The whole point of reconciliation is that it
allows the majority one chance to pass something with only simple
majorities. For Republicans in 2015 – not as a matter of ideological purity
but of practical coalitional unity - that one thing has to include repealing
Obamacare. Corporate tax reform – and much else – can be pursued in
other ways.

4. Fund It? Fix it.

One of the biggest traps Republicans and conservatives fall into is any
debate about budget “cuts.” When you stop for a moment and think, blindly
“cutting” the federal government’s budget is not a very conservative
approach to governing. After all, the conservative critique of Washington is
not that the federal government is a bit profligate, but otherwise efficient
and effective with our money. No, the problem with Washington is that it’s
comprehensively wasteful, unfair, and dysfunctional. It is, in a great many
areas of policy, trying to do the wrong things and doing them in the wrong
ways.

Just spending less on a misguided program doesn’t get you any closer to a
real solution than just spending more on it. If the program is dysfunctional –
if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, and what it’s supposed to do is
worth doing – fix it. Fixing a leaky faucet is not an arbitrary “cut” in one’s
water bill – it’s repairing a broken system so that it only costs what it must.

Republicans can approach federal reform the same way. We can make a
commitment in coming years not merely to cut big government, but to fix
broken government, which is the more difficult but far more important work.

For instance, we know for a fact that the federal highway trust fund wastes
money: on bureaucracy, on special interest giveaways, on projects that are
purely local and can be managed by state and municipal governments.
Therefore, when the time comes next spring to reauthorize the federal
highway program, the Republican Congress should insist on making the
system at least a little bit better – rather than just “finding the money” to
fully fund a legacy system we already know doesn’t work.

I along with several other conservatives have proposed a plan to


permanently reform the highway program; I also know that President
Obama is unlikely to sign it. Republicans shouldn’t accept the president’s
veto threat as the end of the negotiation, however, but the beginning. If he
wants infrastructure money, he should accept some structural reforms to
give states more flexibility and let gas tax revenue go further.
Similarly, Head Start is a program that the Obama Administration itself has
found does not work. Decades of rigorous analysis have shown that it does
not yield lasting benefits for children in need. So, rather than spend less
money on exactly the same broken system – and merely disserve fewer
poor children - Republicans should start to fix it – to better serve more
children, at lower cost to the taxpayers.

Sen. Tom Coburn has fought for years to clean up wasteful aspects of the
Defense Department budget that have no bearing on national security.
Sen. Dick Durbin and I have introduced a bill to reform federal criminal
sentencing guidelines, which would save taxpayers $2.5 billion over ten
years.

Crumbling public support of Common Core should force action on federal


K-12 grants. The Ebola outbreak demands serious reprioritization at the
Centers for Disease Control.

The annual appropriations process should take up this approach, too. We


should put an end to “omnibus,” all-or-nothing spending packages, and
instead insist on consideration of each appropriations bill in regular order –
with hearings, amendments, and specific votes. This is how the
Constitution protects Americans from waste and exploitation, after all. It’s
also the only way Congress can hope to rein in the Obama
Administration’s unprecedented abuses of power – by withholding funding
from corrupt bureaucracies.

Indeed, the entire congressional budget-and-spending process is due for a


comprehensive overhaul. But at a minimum, Congress should only fund
reformed programs. (Only in D.C. would this suggestion be even remotely
controversial.) If the president rigidly resists intelligent, surgical reform
based on thorough oversight, then we could turn to across-the-board cuts,
as we did in 2011.

These are not heavy lifts or ideological crusades I’m describing. They only
seem novel because it’s been so long since we’ve had a functioning
legislature. My modest proposal is that if there is a good reason for
Congress to fund a program, that in and of itself is a good reason to
continually improve it.
5. Ryan-ize the Committees

Ironically (or not, if you know how Congress works), the most important
policy development in the Republican Party in the last decade was not
undertaken by party leaders in the House, Senate, or the White House. In
fact, formal party leaders largely discouraged it.

Instead, that work was conducted by Congressman Paul Ryan when he


became the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee in 2007.
Ryan instructed his new committee staff to think big, to transcend the
short-termism that plagues Congress and develop solutions to long-term
problems. Ryan and his staff dove deep into America’s structural budget
shortfalls and the long-term challenges to our entitlement programs and
economy.

The end result was what Ryan called his “Roadmap for America’s Future.”
It called for major reforms to our tax system, our entitlement programs, our
health care system, and across the federal government. It was
controversial, of course. The immediate reception was predictable:
Democrats trashed it and most Republicans ran for cover. But in time,
people on both sides of the aisle were forced to admit that the Roadmap
was a serious document. It warranted a serious debate, and it has gotten
one ever since. When Republicans took back the House of
Representatives in 2011, some of the broad outlines of the Ryan Roadmap
became de facto positions of the Republican party – positions on issues
Democrats still try to pretend don’t exist.

For all the well-deserved plaudits Ryan gets for his brains, the Roadmap –
whatever one thinks of it - was really an achievement of his guts. He had
the courage to take his plan into the arena, and withstand criticism, even
from his allies. That is, he did what all politicians say we want to do – and
succeeded.

So the fifth step to a healthy Republican majority in the 114th Congress is


to use congressional committees to begin developing the agenda for the
115th and 116th and 117th Congresses, too. We should “Ryan-ize” the
committees, for lack of a better word, encouraging our chairmen to think
big. House and Senate Republicans should make it part of the job
description of “Chairman” that each committee – and ideally, each
subcommittee – propose at least one major, fundamental, long-term policy
overhaul each year.
These reforms could not be passed in this Congress, of course. And
conservatives are rightly suspicious of “big bill” legislating at all anymore.
But such proposals would serve the valuable purpose of identifying long-
term goals that nearer-term, incremental proposals can move policy
toward. They would be outlines, not thousand-page bills, and they would
help shape the small bills and gradual steps necessary to advance a
conservative vision of government.

America’s health care, energy, higher education, telecommunications,


security, and criminal justice needs (to name just a few) appear to be in the
midst of transitions, nearing tipping points that will help define our nation in
decades to come. In such a moment, it’s not enough to ask ourselves,
“What can we pass this year?” without first asking – and investing every
possible resource into answering – “How can our needs be met in the 21st
century?”

Government itself is one of the prime candidates for this kind of thinking.
Most systems we use to provide government services were designed
decades ago, before the tech and telecom revolutions that have changed
the way Americans do almost everything else. In twenty years, will we
need, say, a Government Printing Office or Internal Revenue Service in
anything like their current forms? If disruptive innovations continue to
personalize and localize the economy, will centralized, monolithic
bureaucracies be the right instruments to regulate it? Or is government just
as badly in need of some disruptive innovations that would enable market
forces, public desires, and longstanding constitutional principles to once
again show us the way and make our institutions more accountable?

Of course politicians cannot predict the future, nor can government direct
future industries any better than it directs current ones. But we know that
our society and our economy have rocketed out in front of our government,
and that the bureaucracy in its current form is unlikely ever to catch up.
Insisting that today’s leaders look beyond the next news cycle and the next
election cycle will benefit the country and the Republican Party in the long
run.

The only way to move incrementally in the right direction is to know which
way the right direction is. Long-term reform projects will lay down markers
for the Party while identifying opportunities for innovation in the nearer
term.
The above suggestions represent dramatic departures from Congress’s
status quo, but that’s the point. The new Republican majority cannot
indulge in fantasies of a mandate or public contentment with its political
institution.

Everything about American life today is becoming more decentralized,


open-source, localized and personalized. Everything, that is, except
government. An increasingly customizable economy and diverse social
networks of mini-communities will not long tolerate the innate
incompetence of clumsy, self-serving, Big Government. Since the end of
the Cold War, the American people have experimented with every
conceivable combination of partisan control in Washington – presidents,
Houses, and Senates of both parties.

In that time, the costs of the staples of middle-class life – housing, health
care, education, child-rearing, and retirement security – have risen,
unabated. Yet take-home pay is stagnant and jobs are increasingly
insecure. We are not getting this right.

But the cliché that Washington doesn’t work is not right, either. Washington
does work, for Washington. For many years, Congress has worked
perfectly well for so-called “stakeholders” on Wall Street, K Street, and
Pennsylvania Avenue. The challenge for the new Republican majority is to
put Congress back to work for Main Street — to make Washington work for
America.

The status quo is failing. So leaders need to seek for strategies and tactics
outside the status quo. The new Republican Congress cannot be led
according to the old ways of hierarchical deference, or appeals to
institutional trust.

But just because Republican unity cannot be imposed doesn’t mean it


cannot be achieved. There are other paths to unity and cooperation and
shared success, including the path that the Republican Party already
embraces in America’s free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.

What I propose, then, is an agenda of empowerment – an internal


Republican agenda of empowerment to complement our external one. Let
Congress operate less like a 19th-century industrial mill, and more like a
21st-century open-source network.
The media wants to criticize the G.O.P.’s diversity and independence as
disunity and weakness. But this criticism says much more about the critics
than about us. It’s like saying in 1999 that Borders Books would rout
Amazon, or saying today that taxi cartels are “stronger” than Uber. In
today’s world, individual and community empowerment are strengths for
organizations who know how to use them.

Transparency, equality, diversity, and innovation – these are not abstract


values, but practical strategies that our new majority can use to unite the
Republican coalition, revive public trust in Congress, and put the federal
government back on the side of the working families and communities our
broken status quo is leaving behind.

Tuesday, Republicans won a great victory.

Now what? Deserve it.


Jan 13 2014

Lee Reacts to Oral Argument in Recess Appoints


Case
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike
Lee said that he expects the Supreme
Court to determine that President
Obama’s controversial recess
appointments from January 2012 were
unconstitutional. Sen. Lee, who is a
former Supreme Court clerk for Justice
Samuel Alito, has been a strong and vocal
opponent of President Obama’s attempt to
usurp the rights of the Senate in the appointment and confirmation of
nominees to the executive and judicial branch. He attended the oral
argument today in the case of National Labor Relations Board v Noel
Canning.

“After hearing oral arguments today, I am very confident the Supreme


Court will affirm the DC Circuit Court’s judgment in NLRB v Noel Canning
and determine that the president’s recess appointments on January 4,
2012, were unconstitutional,” said Sen. Lee. “In making the appointments,
the president took a power that does not belong to him. It rightfully belongs
to the American people, through their representatives in the Senate, and is
an essential constitutional check on the executive branch. I am confident
the Supreme Court will restore the Senate’s prerogatives and condemn this
assault on the rule of law.
 
 
Jan 28 2014

Excerpts from Sen. Lee’s Response to the


President’s State of the Union Speech
WASHINGTON – Tonight, Senator Mike Lee will give the Tea Party
response to the president’s State of the Union speech.

The following are selected excerpts of Sen. Lee’s remarks:

“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.”

“Today, Americans know in their hearts that something is wrong. Much of


what is wrong relates to the sense that the ‘American Dream’ is falling out
of reach for far too many of us. We are facing an inequality crisis — one to
which the President has paid lip-service, but seems uninterested in truly
confronting or correcting.”

“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.”

“Throughout the last five years, President Obama has promised an


economy for the middle class; but all he’s delivered is an economy for the
middle-men.”

“We have a new generation of leaders in Washington with positive,


innovative ideas – thoughtful policy reforms to, as my friend Senator Ted
Cruz says –“Make D.C. listen.” Reforms to help poor families work their
way into the middle class, to help middle-class families start to get ahead,
and to level the playing field and put corporate and political insiders back to
work for the rest of us.”
“All of these proposals within this new conservative reform agenda, along
with many more to come, mark the road to Philadelphia. These principles
and these policies will work - and will put Americans back to work. Not just
by cutting big government, but by fixing broken government. Not just by
making government smaller but by promoting bigger citizens, stronger
families and more heroic communities. Our goal should be an America
where everyone has a fair chance to pursue happiness - and find it. That’s
what it looks like when protest grows into reform.”
 

Jan 29 2014

Lee to Holder: Explain Constitutional Basis for


Executive Action on Minimum Wage, Delaying
Employer Mandate
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee
asked Attorney General Holder to explain the
President’s constitutional authority to take
executive action to delay the employer
mandate and raise the minimum
wage. When Holder was unable to explain
the analysis, Lee called for the Department of
Justice to release documents that explain the
decision “so that the American people can be aware of what’s happening
and on what basis [the President] is claiming that authority.”

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: “General Holder, I respectfully but forcefully disagree with the


assertion, if this is what you’re saying, that because the number of orders
issued by this president might be comparable to the number of executive
orders issued by previous presidents that that means he hasn’t made more
use of it then other presidents have. When you look at the quality – not
just the quantity, but the quality – the nature of the executive orders that he
has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the
executive branch. This is not precedented. And I point to the delay – the
unilateral delay – lawless delay, in my opinion, of the employer mandate as
an example of this.”
Feb 04 2014

Lee: Farm Bill is a Monument to Washington


Dysfunction
WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Mike Lee
blasted the Agriculture Act of 2014, also known as the Farm Bill, as a
“Beltway marriage of convenience between welfare and corporate welfare,”
and criticized the use of PILT payments, critical funding for Utah’s small,
rural communities, as a political football.

“This Farm Bill is a monument to every dysfunction Washington indulges to


bend our politics and twist our economy to benefit itself at the expense of
the American people,” said Sen. Lee. He added that the Farm Bill is
“collusion between both parties against the American people; it benefits the
special interests at the expense of the national interest.”

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.”

“To compensate local governments for the tax revenue Washington


unfairly denies them, Congress created – as only Congress could - the
PILT program, which stands for Payment In Lieu of Taxes,” explained
Lee. “Under PILT, Congress sends a few cents on the dollar out west
every year to make up for lost property taxes. There is no guaranteed
amount. Washington just sends what it feels like.”

“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

Senators Introduce Resolution Denouncing


Obama Administration’s Coercion of States with
Common Core

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) will


introduce a resolution strongly denouncing the Obama Administration’s
coercion of states into adopting Common Core State Standards by
conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.

The resolution is co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-South Carolina),


Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James
Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Roger Wicker (R-
Mississippi), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).

“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.”

“It is crucial that the money being spent on education in Oklahoma be


controlled by Oklahomans who are familiar with the needs of our schools
and students,” said Inhofe. “This is why I am proud to join Senator Graham
in introducing a resolution that enforces vital education practices of leaving
the decisions of children's educational needs to the state and the parents.

“Educational decisions are best made by parents and teachers – not


bureaucrats in Washington,” said Scott. “While Common Core started out
as a state-led initiative, the federal government unfortunately decided to
use carrots and sticks to coerce states into adopting national standards
and assessments. That is simply the wrong choice for our kids.”

“Common Core is another example of Washington trying to control all


aspects of Americans’ lives, including the education of our children,” said
Cruz. “We should not allow the federal government to dictate what our
children learn; rather, parents, through their teachers, local schools and
state systems, should be able to direct the education of their children.”

“Common Core has become polluted with Federal guidelines and


mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals
to deliver the education our children deserve,” said Lee. “Rather than
increasing coercion, we should be demanding that further interference by
the U.S. Department of Education with respect to state decisions on
academic content standards be eliminated.”

“Decisions about what content students should be taught have enormous


consequences for children and so should be made as close as possible to
the affected parents and students,” said Grassley. “Federal interference in
this area disrupts the direct line of accountability between parents and
those making decisions about their children’s education. It also takes
away needed flexibility from state education leaders to make changes as
they learn more about what works and what does not.”

“This Administration favors a national school board approach to education


and likes to ignore individual states’ decisions,” said Enzi. “It uses ‘free’
money as the carrot to dangle in front of the states. In effect it is trying to
force states into accepting a one-size-fits-all approach. This coercion with
Common Core is another example of the federal government trampling on
states’ rights and is the wrong approach to fixing our education system in
this country.”

The major provisions of the resolution affirm:

• Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials,


and states.
• The federal government should not coerce states into adopting
common education standards.
• No future application process for any federal grant funds or waivers
should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the
adoption of Common Core.

FACT SHEET

Purpose of the Resolution:

• Strongly denounces President Obama’s coercion of states into


adopting Common Core by conferring preferences in federal grants
and flexibility waivers.
• Strongly supports the restoration and protection of state authority
and flexibility in establishing and defining challenging student
academic standards and assessments.

What the Resolution States:

• Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials,


and states.
• The federal government should not coerce states into adopting
common education standards.
• No application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should
award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption
of Common Core.
• The link between adoption of common education standards and
federal funds will result in increased federal control over education.
• The resolution does not retract any federal funds or waivers already
issued to states.
• The resolution does not evaluate the content of the Common Core
standards already developed and adopted by states.
 
 
Feb 06 2014

Bipartisan Group of Senators Push for


Congressional Vote Before Extending Afghanistan
Troop Presence

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.”

After 12 years and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, the Administration


has declared that the war in Afghanistan will be wound down by December
31, 2014. However, the Administration is also negotiating an agreement
with the Government of Afghanistan that would set guidelines for U.S.
troops to remain in training, support, and counter-terrorism roles through at
least 2024.

In November, the Senators introduced this bill as an amendment to the


Defense Authorization bill, but it wasn’t allowed a vote. In June, the House
of Representatives approved a similar amendment to the NDAA stating
that it is the Sense of Congress that if the President determines that it is
necessary to maintain U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, any such
presence and missions should be authorized by Congress. The House
amendment passed by a robust, bipartisan 305-121 margin.
Jun 17 2014

Lee to Offer Amendment to Keep Housing


Decisions in Local Hands
WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee announced his plans to offer
an amendment that would block funding for a regulation that allows the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to dictate local
zoning requirements in any community across the country.

“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.”

Senator Lee plans to offer his amendment to the Senate Transportation,


Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act should it be brought
to the floor this week.

If funded, the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule would empower


federal officials to assert the authority to force any community that receives
a Community Development Block Grant to comply with zoning plans
written in Washington. This rule effectively allows HUD to carve up the
country, block by block, according to its own priorities and preferences.

Community Development Block Grants are allocations of federal tax


dollars, issued to local governments by HUD, to address a variety of
community development needs. One of the primary uses of these
resources is to provide affordable public housing for individuals and
families in need. Sadly, the inevitable consequence of federal management
over how local officials spend this money will only make it harder for
communities to provide adequate low-cost housing for their neighbors in
need.

To protect the ability of local officials to serve low-income communities,


Senator Lee’s amendment would prevent this egregious power grab by the
federal government and would keep housing decisions closest to the
people who are affected by them.

Rep. Paul Gosar is the original sponsor of a similar amendment in the


House, which was successfully added to H.R. 4745, the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
Jun 26 2014

Lee Reacts to Supreme Court's Recess


Appointments Decision

On January 3, 2012 the President ignored the Constitution and attempted


to circumvent the Senate by unilaterally making important appointments to
controversial executive agencies. Although past presidents have made
recess appointments, the appointments President Obama attempted to
make were different. The President attempted to change the Senate’s rules
and define for himself when the Senate is in session and when it is in
recess. The Supreme Court’s decision today—in which all nine justices,
including President Obama’s own nominees, held that President Obama
violated the Constitution—makes plain that the President’s actions were
truly unprecedented and unauthorized.

Regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican,


Members of Congress have a duty to support the Constitution and defend
the Senate’s prerogatives. That is why I took measures to oppose
President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments, including
speaking out against these appointments at every opportunity and
opposing the President’s nominees until the Senate imposed the Leahy-
Thurmond rule in the summer of 2012.
Jun 30 2014

Lee Reacts to Hobby Lobby Decision

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:

"Today's decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby marks an important victory for


religious liberty. Americans do not shed their religious freedoms merely by
going into business. The Court's ruling upholds and strengthens the rights
of individuals and the rule of law, while protecting the Constitution."
Jul 29 2014

Lee: A Better Way to Improve America's


Transportation Infrastructure
“Under the Transportation Empowerment Act, Americans could finally
enjoy the local infrastructure they want. More environmentally conscious
states and towns could finally have the flexibility to invest in more green
transit projects and bike lanes. Regions reaping the benefits of America’s
energy renaissance could accelerate their infrastructure build-outs to keep
up with their explosive growth. Dense cities could invest in more
sustainable public transit networks.

“Meanwhile, surrounding counties could re-open the frontiers of the


suburbs to a new generation of more livable communities. State and local
governments will also be freed to experiment with innovative funding
mechanisms not tied to the unreliable gas tax. And by cutting out the
Washington middle-men, all those states and communities and taxpayers
will be able to get more for less…

“Today Americans are unnecessarily stuck in traffic, stuffed in


overcrowded subway cars, missing their kids’ games and recitals, priced
out of neighborhoods close to their jobs and spend almost a full 40-hour
work week per year stuck in gridlock.

“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

Lee at Reagan Ranch: Answering Reagan's


Challenge

RANCHO DEL CIELO - Today, Senator


Mike Lee delivered a speech at the
Reagan Ranch to commemorate the
33rd anniversary of President Reagan
signing into law one of his first major
economic reforms, the Economic
Recovery Tax Act of 1981.

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.

The following excerpts are from the speech:

Reagan wanted to build a new Republican Party, a new majority coalition,


a new conservative movement that would not just cut across party lines...
but permanently redraw them.

He knew that abstract theories and negative attacks weren’t going to cut it.
Reagan needed to make conservatism new, real, and relevant.

He rebuilt conservatism with a concrete agenda of innovative reforms to


directly help and empower all of the forgotten Americans whom liberalism
always leaves behind.
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.

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

Lee Responds to Court Decision on Gay Marriage


Cases

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee responded to the decision by


the Supreme Court to not review several cases involving a state’s right to
define marriage:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in
Kitchen v. Herbert is disappointing. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a
state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union
between a man and a woman. Whether to change that definition is a
decision best left to the people of each state — not to unelected, politically
unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those
states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the
question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.”
Nov 06 2014

How to Fix Congress: Five Steps To Restore


Trust, Transparency, And Empowerment
After years of frustration and months of feverish work, the Republican
Party has finally won back the U.S. Senate, and with it, undivided control of
Congress. But no sooner had Tuesday night’s balloon drops hit the floor
than Republicans around the country—and especially in certain offices in
Washington, DC—faced that timeless question of election-night winners:
Now what?

This is never an easy question to answer, given the requisite balancing act
between expectations and realities, politics and substance. And answering
it could be especially difficult for the leaders of the new Republican
Congress, for two additional reasons.

First, there is the still-strained relationship between the GOP’s Washington


establishment and its grassroots conservative base. And second, the party
establishment and consultant class chose to de-emphasize Republican
policy alternatives during the campaign. So despite that strategy’s
apparent success Tuesday night, our new majority cannot claim a
sweeping legislative mandate.

But this question needs to be answered, nonetheless. And soon.

As a frequent critic of my party’s strategic timidity—and as incoming


chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, whose job it is encourage
bolder thinking and action—I thought it incumbent on me to offer some
concrete, early, and hopefully constructive suggestions about how the new
Republican Congress might be steered toward unity and success.

As the reader will see, the ideas below are not really policy goals. (I have
my own ideas about what our party’s reform agenda ought to be, and I will
spend most of the next two years advocating them.)
Rather, these are five suggestions to my Republican colleagues to help
repair the dysfunctional legislative branch we have inherited, rebuild
Congress’s reputation among the American people, and by extension
slowly restore the public’s confidence in the Republican Party…
Nov 10 2014

Lee Responds to President’s Statement on Net


Neutrality

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee released the following


statement in response the President’s announcement on net neutrality:
“The President’s suggestion that the FCC reclassify the Internet as a public
utility, and subject it to the most pervasive and suffocating kind of
government regulation, is dangerous. The Internet has flourished precisely
because it has been open and free of just this kind of government control.
The President’s policy would threaten to break the Internet—and stifle
innovation in the most vibrant sector of our economy. “To keep creating
jobs and opportunities for the American people, the Internet needs to be
free, and protected – by Congress if necessary - from another
dysfunctional government takeover." “Critics of the status quo are right to
push for reform and it’s been almost twenty years since Congress updated
The Communications Act. But net neutrality is a regulatory framework
designed for railroads and telegraphs. We can’t condemn a regulatory
framework from the 20th century to replace it with one from the 19th! What
we need is to ensure we are protecting consumers and competition across
this sector, putting neither producers nor providers, but consumers at the
center of the Internet economy." Senator Lee is a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Dec 16 2014

Lee: Our Executive Officials Must Uphold the


Rule of Law

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee made the following remarks


regarding his opposition to the confirmation of Sarah Saldaña, President
Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

“Mr./Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Sarah


Saldaña to be in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the
Department of Homeland Security.

“As we know, the President has recently announced that he will take
unilateral executive action on immigration. In so doing he has
circumvented the democratic process, broken the law, and subverted the
constitutional order. It is incumbent on every member of this body — no
matter what their politics, or what immigration policies they would prefer to
enact — to oppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the
rule of law.

“Fulfilling that duty leads me to oppose Ms. Saldaña’s nomination to be


ICE director. Although I respect her and her record of public service,
including an admirable independent streak as United States Attorney, she
has also demonstrated that her commitment to the rule of law may falter
when it comes to faithfully enforcing the Immigration and Nationality
Act. In response to a question asked by several members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, including me, Ms. Saldaña said she agreed with the
position of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who entered the
country illegally, and have now been targeted for so-called deferred action,
have “earned the right to be citizens.”
“That’s quite a bold claim. No doubt Congress could, and many people
think it should, ease the path the citizenship for some aliens here
unlawfully. But to assert that citizenship is a matter of right, and that it has
been earned by the very act of breaking our immigration laws, is an
unacceptable view for a person nominated to be head of immigration
enforcement. …

“We have passed through the looking glass. And to see how far 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.”

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy