Press Releases
Lee: President's Syria Proposal Raises Security Questions
May 28, 2014
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.
Klobuchar, Lee Call for Review of AT&T’s Proposed Acquisition of DirectTV
May 23, 2014
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.
Sincerely,
“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.
Sincerely,
Klobuchar, Lee Statements on AT&T-DirecTV Merger
May 19, 2014
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) today released the following statements regarding the AT&T-DirecTV merger. Klobuchar is chair and Lee is ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights.
“AT&T's proposed acquisition of DirecTV is yet another merger that has the potential to dramatically change the television market,” Klobuchar said. “As chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing to examine the effect this merger would have on competition, innovation, and the prices, choices, and service offered to consumers across the country.”
“The announcement of an additional merger in the telecommunications and media industry raises concerns about the level of consolidation in these markets,” Lee said. “At the same time, consolidation can benefit consumers in some circumstances. I look forward to carefully reviewing the evidence and examining the effect this transaction may have on consumer welfare.”
“AT&T's proposed acquisition of DirecTV is yet another merger that has the potential to dramatically change the television market,” Klobuchar said. “As chair of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing to examine the effect this merger would have on competition, innovation, and the prices, choices, and service offered to consumers across the country.”
“The announcement of an additional merger in the telecommunications and media industry raises concerns about the level of consolidation in these markets,” Lee said. “At the same time, consolidation can benefit consumers in some circumstances. I look forward to carefully reviewing the evidence and examining the effect this transaction may have on consumer welfare.”
Western Caucuses Urge EPA to Halt “Waters of the US" Rule
May 8, 2014
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.
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.
