Make America Energy Great Again

December 9, 2016

For the past eight years, President Obama and his allies in Congress have feverishly worked to centralize energy regulatory power in Washington, empowering federal bureaucrats to micromanage how energy producers operate their facilities and run their businesses.

The fundamental problem with centralized regulatory authority is the tendency of Washington bureaucrats to be ignorant of – and often indifferent to – the interests of the people who live in the communities that are affected by their rules.

This isn’t a knock on the men and women who work in the federal bureaucracy, most of whom are well-educated and well-intentioned. But there’s no doubt that a regulator in Washington, DC, knows less about a coal mine in Sevier County, Utah than a regulator in Salt Lake City.

But starting in January 2017, we can begin to move all that decision making power closer to the people.

The incoming Congress and new administration give us the best opportunity in recent memory to put Washington – especially federal energy policy – back on the side of hardworking Americans.

This will require a dual-track approach that simultaneously reins in our hyperactive federal bureaucracy and takes positive steps to return regulatory authority to the states.

We can – and should – start the process of repealing the most harmful and costly federal regulations right away. For President-elect Trump, this means undoing many of his predecessor’s executive orders, like the moratorium on coal leasing. And on Capitol Hill, we can get to work immediately after the new Congress is sworn in, by using the Congressional Review Act to rescind the laundry list of regulations the Obama administration issued in the past several months.

Much of this can be accomplished in the first 100 days of the new administration. But we must also advance long-term, structural solutions that decentralize regulatory authority out of the federal bureaucracy.

This should begin with a much-needed and fundamental attitude adjustment within administrative agencies (which is one reason I’m extremely encouraged by the nomination of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency), so that Washington’s regulators remember that their job is to work with – not condescend to – the states.

Finally, Congress should work to pass, and get signed into law, legislation that empowers states to resume their rightful role in regulating the energy producers within their borders. For federal lands states, like Utah, I believe the only fair and sustainable solution is a full transfer of all non-controversial federal land back to the state governments. But this is a long-term goal, and in the meantime, we can develop solutions that encourage co-management of public lands and that prevent federal rules from preempting or overriding effective regulations implemented by state agencies.

Advancing public policies that support and strengthen the revival of energy production in our country is important for all Americans, but especially for our fellow citizens involved in producing, refining, and transporting our nation’s energy resources – jobs like construction workers, rig and drill operators, and miners – where upwards of 90 percent of workers don’t have, or need, a college degree.

If we want our economy to produce the jobs and wage growth it has in the past, the energy sector is perhaps the best area for the incoming administration to start.

Stop President Obama’s Last Special-Interest Bailout

December 2, 2016

In December 2008, just weeks after President Obama was first elected, environmental activists sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that the agency had failed to regulate certain “hazardous air pollutants” emitted by power plants pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

Resolving a lawsuit that involves a federal agency like the EPA can take a very long time – years even – especially when the suit is initiated in the first year of a new administration. But not in this case. Within 10 months, President Obama’s EPA decided to settle the suit with the environmental activists. How did they do it so quickly? By promising to enact new regulations of American power plants.

This is a classic case of a “sue-and-settle” scheme, the pernicious practice of activist organizations suing the federal government with the sole intention of reaching a closed-door settlement that achieves the group’s preferred regulatory goals much faster than could occur through the normal bureaucratic rulemaking process.

Indeed, the environmentalists’ lawsuit provided the EPA the pretext they needed to issue regulations that were far stricter – and more expensive – than otherwise would have been possible. The EPA’s own studies estimate that the resulting set of regulations – called the Utility MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) Rule – will cost the U.S. economy $9.6 billion every year. That’s a staggering sum, but it’s only a drop in the bucket of the total cost of the draconian environmental regulations that the Obama administration has issued in response to similar lawsuits. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Obama administration has entered into an estimated 60 such settlements.

Using lawsuits to extort new regulations from executive agencies is an affront to the rule of law and democratic government. But it’s proved to be highly effective for special-interest groups seeking to shape the law in their favor, which is why we see it spreading to other policy areas, like health care.

At least six insurance companies that participated in the Obamacare exchanges are now suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming that HHS owes them billions in “risk corridor” program payments that would have prevented their heavy Obamacare losses.

When Obamacare was first passed, the program was supposed to be funded by payments from other insurance companies who did not have to spend a lot of money covering health-care claims from their policyholders. But since almost all insurance companies were spending more than they expected on Obamacare patients, no one was paying into the program.

President Obama first went to Congress and asked for money to cover the unpaid insurance claims but Congress said no. Then in September, HHS issued a memorandum claiming that the insurance companies who had sued HHS might be able to get their unpaid risk corridor bills paid through the Department of Justice’s Judgment Fund.

The Congressional Research Service has since concluded that such payments were not authorized by statute, but that hasn’t stopped President Obama in the past.

That’s why last month I joined my colleagues, Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Barrasso (R-WY), to introduce the HHS Slush Fund Elimination Act. The bill would prohibit the government from using the Judgment Fund, or any other federal funds, to pay final judgment or settlement related to any lawsuits pertaining to the Obamacare risk-corridor program.

Federal bureaucrats and special interests should not be able to create policy through sue-and-settle schemes. Congress has already relinquished far too much of its legislative powers to the Executive Branch. This bill would make sure we don’t give away even more.

Toward a Principled Populism

November 18, 2016

“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Calvin Coolidge once said. But with a unified federal government soon to be in Republican hands, maybe we can do a bit of both.

But how? While congressional Republicans tend to identify as conservatives, President-elect Donald Trump is a populist. Many observers, including some Republicans, see this as an un-squareable circle.

I disagree. For all the challenges a President Trump may present conservatives during his term, his populism need not be one of them. Far from contradictory, conservatism and populism complement each other in ways that can change history—as did the most successful populist in recent decades, Ronald Reagan.

The chief political weakness of conservatism is its difficulty identifying problems that are appropriate for political correction. Conservatism’s view of human nature and history teaches us that problems are inevitable in this world and that attempts to use the federal government to solve them often only make things worse.

This insight actually makes us good at finding solutions. At our best, conservatives craft policy reforms that empower bottom-up, trial-and-error problem-solving and the institutions that facilitate it, such as markets and civil society. At our worst, though, we can seem indifferent to suffering and injustice because we overlook problems that require our action or resign ourselves to their insolvability.

Populists, on the other hand, have an uncanny knack for identifying social problems. It’s when pressed for solutions that populists tend to reveal their characteristic weakness. Unable to draw on a coherent philosophy, populists can tend toward inconsistent or unserious proposals.

The rough terms of a successful partnership seem obvious. Populism identifies the problems; conservatism develops the solutions, with President Trump overseeing the process with a veto pen that keeps everyone honest. Call it “principled populism”: an authentic conservatism focused on solving the problems facing working Americans in a fracturing society and globalizing economy.

As principled populists, Republicans would not only apply conservative insights to solve discrete problems, but also anchor our conservatism to the Constitution and radically decentralize Washington’s policymaking power. The new Congress should seize back its Article I legislative authority, ideally with President Trump’s help, because only by putting Congress back in charge of federal lawmaking can he make good on his promise to put the American people back in charge of Washington.

And as quickly as Congress recovers its policy portfolio, we should transfer as much of it as possible to the states. The election map once again showed how divided our nation is. To those who would centralize power, this diversity is an obstacle. But constitutional populists can make diversity a real strength by liberating blue and red states alike from the arbitrary rule of an imperial president. Let states, cities, and towns govern themselves, according to their own values.

In the past, when populist rebellions have failed, it has usually been when their leaders, lacking a governing philosophy, descend into authoritarianism. Reagan succeeded because he elevated his populism by channeling it through conservative and constitutional principles, just as President-elect Trump now has the opportunity to do.

History warns us that, for ordinary people, there is no such thing as “our” strongman. A republic of constitutionally empowered citizens—free, respected, and sovereign—would never want one in the first place. Leaving our children just such a republic is how principled populism can help our new president truly make America great again.

(A longer version of this article is on newsstands now in National Review.)

Don’t Settle

September 30, 2016

Yesterday, the Senate passed a 10-week continuing resolution by a 72-26 vote. I voted against the bill and I want to explain why.

A continuing resolution is a bill that basically keeps the government funded through an autopilot type mechanism. It just keeps the government headed in the same direction. It doesn’t really change much.

Today’s continuing resolution comes just a couple of days before the expiration of the current spending bill that expires on September 30th. The problem with this is that we’ve known for a year that this was going to happen. We’ve known for a year that September 30th would arrive, that at that moment we would have to pass something or risk a government shutdown.

Now there was an effort to fund the government properly through itemized appropriations bills. And that effort was blocked by the Democrats. And they will have to answer for that.

But even if we are going to do it all in one bill, they ought to at least put it on the Senate floor, and allow us to debate it, and discuss it, and amend it, and make changes to it.

Instead, what ends up happening is that you have just a small handful of legislative leaders, negotiating in secret about what is going to be in the bill.

Then at the end of this long mysterious process, they emerge as if coming down from a mountain with stone tablets showing us what they have mysteriously put together. And at that point everyone is given a binary choice that is very unpleasant: either vote to pass this bill and keep the government funded or you vote no and a government shutdown ensues.


Well it doesn’t have to be that way and it shouldn’t be that way. The spending power that Congress has is one of the most important pieces of the constitutional puzzle. It has to mean something. If we allow it to be powerful, if we allow it to do what it was intended to, it really can work well.

James Madison described this power in Federalist 58. He said it was “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

But in order for every just and salutary measure to be covered, you have to allow every member an opportunity to offer improvements, to try and change things one way or another.

Anyone who purports to believe in constitutionally limited government ought to care enough about the process to make sure that Congress doesn’t become a rubber stamp for the small handful of legislative leaders who put themselves in charge of this behind-the-scenes, closed-door negotiation process.

We’ve been asked as a people for too long to simply settle. To simply settle for last minute legislation, for a government that’s always expanding, for a government that thinks its there to provide for our every need, that thinks its big enough and smart enough to make every decision for us. We’ve been asked to settle for too long.

Don’t settle.

Preventing Abuse of the Antiquities Act

September 23, 2016

This past Monday marked the 20th anniversary of President Bill Clinton using the Antiquities Act to create the 1.5 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.

For most Utahns, this date is not a cause for celebration. It’s a source of anger toward what many see as an out-of-touch and overbearing federal government

Infamously, the Clinton administration failed to notify the people of Utah prior to announcing the monument designation – probably because the administration knew that nearly everyone in the state was opposed to the idea.

Utah’s congressional delegation, state and county leaders, and local residents all warned that a national-monument designation would dramatically disrupt the way of life in southern Utah and make it harder for working-class Utahns to earn a living.

Dismissing these concerns, administration officials insisted that an Antiquities Act designation would actually boost the local economy.

But 20 years later, the verdict is in. The people of Utah were right.

The land-use restrictions that accompanied the monument have wiped out many of the stable jobs that previously formed the backbone of the local economy – including ranching, mining, and timber harvesting.

To the limited extent that the national monument has spurred any job creation, it has been confined to the government and seasonal-tourism sectors, which don’t provide the steady work or wages necessary to support a family.

Today, Utah is again facing the threat of another national-monument designation. At the behest of mostly out-of-state environmental activists, President Obama is currently considering creating the Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah. And just like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, a Bears Ears monument would deprive vulnerable communities of vital economic, recreational, and cultural resources, by unilaterally locking up 1.9 million acres of land.

This Wednesday, Utah Native Americans delivered to the Secretary of the Interior letters, petitions, and resolutions opposing the proposed Bears Ears National Monument.

Their message should be heard loud and clear: enough is enough. The people of Utah are tired of living in fear that the president may at any moment, with the stroke of his pen, upend their way of life.

House Natural Resources Chairman Bishop has spent the past three years working on the Public Lands Initiative, legislation that would further protect the lands President Obama is considering designating. After holding more than a thousand meetings, Chairman Bishop is on the verge of passing a middle-of-the-road lands bill.

Unfortunately, this process is on the verge of being short-circuited by executive fiat. This is why I have introduced S. 3317, which would prohibit the establishment of new national monuments in Utah except by express authorization of Congress. This is not some radical new idea or a special carve out. Since 1950, Wyoming has enjoyed an identical exemption from the Antiquities Act.

My bill would simply put Utah on an equal footing with Wyoming and give the people of Utah some peace of mind about the future of their lands and livelihoods.

Keeping Our Republic

September 16, 2016

Perhaps the most famous words spoken on the day we commemorate today – September 17, 1787 – were those of Benjamin Franklin. After the Constitution had been signed and the Convention adjourned, Franklin was asked by a group of curious Philadelphians gathered outside Independence Hall what type of government the delegates had created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

This pithy response – more of a challenge than an answer – is so memorable and quotable that we tend to repeat it more often than we pause to reflect on its meaning. So today, on the 229th anniversary of Mr. Franklin’s famous proclamation, it’s worth asking ourselves: what exactly does it take to “keep” the American republic?

To my mind, one of the best answers to this question was given by Abraham Lincoln in an address he delivered in 1838, at the ripe old age of 28, to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. The subject of the speech was “the perpetuation of our political institutions,” which he described as the central and perennial task of republican citizenship.

Lincoln said that every generation of Americans has the responsibility to pass along to its descendants the “political edifice of liberty and equal rights” that had been established by the nation’s founders – our “hardy, brave, and patriotic” ancestors. He insisted that this process of perpetuation – the project of “keeping” the republic – would succeed only if the American people respected the nation’s laws and viewed the government with affection, rather than suspicion or derision.

The “strongest bulwark of any Government” is “the attachment of the People,” Lincoln declared. If “the laws be continually despised and disregarded,” and if the people become estranged from their public institutions, losing trust in the officials charged with making and enforcing the law, “this Government cannot last.”

Lincoln was right. At the heart of the American republic is a social compact based on mutual trust between the people and their representatives in government who are obligated to govern on their behalf. Government officials are given power to make and enforce the laws on the condition that they respect and remain accountable to the interests and concerns of the people they represent.

But today, this mutual trust and respect that are necessary to bind the American people to their public institutions has been deeply corroded. The primary reason is that the vast majority of the federal government’s do’s and don’ts governing our lives are written not by the people’s elected representatives in Congress, but by unelected, anonymous bureaucrats in the Executive Branch.

No wonder only 22 percent of the country believes that most elected officials put the interests of the nation ahead of their own interests, and a mere 19 percent of Americans say they can trust the government always or most of the time.

Following Abraham Lincoln, I believe this crisis of confidence in America today is a grave threat to our ability to preserve our public institutions for the next generation. That’s why, earlier this year, I launched the Article I Project – a new network of policymakers working together to develop a legislative agenda that will reclaim Congress’s constitutional lawmaking powers that today are being improperly exercised by the Executive Branch and thereby restore the democratic accountability on which our system of government depends.

If we are to “keep” our republic, as Benjamin Franklin challenged us to do 229 years ago, we must rebuild the American people’s trust in the nation’s public institutions. And the only way to do that is by finally making Congress responsible again – both in the sense of discharging its constitutional duties and making itself accountable for the consequences.

When the Regulated Become the Regulators

September 9, 2016

Utahns have a lot to be proud of. We’re one of the happiest and healthiest states in the nation. We have one of the lowest poverty levels and the lowest level of income inequality of any state. Our economy ranked second in the nation for job growth last year, and CNBC named Utah the top state for doing business this year.

Despite all that we have accomplished, we cannot rest on our laurels. Not only are neighboring states looking to emulate our success, but unaddressed policy challenges are creating opportunities we should capitalize on.

That’s why I invited business, education, and technology leaders from around Utah, and from across the country, to join me at this year’s Utah Solutions Summit, which met on Thursday, Sept. 1.

As a federal legislator, one of the questions that concerns me the most is how does federal education policy make it harder for today’s students to acquire the skills they need to succeed in our competitive economy?

We know that too many young Americans are borrowing far too much money chasing increasingly expensive degrees that are worth less and less. One of the causes of the dysfunction within higher education is the current accreditation system, which requires students who need federal financial assistance to attend only those institutions that are approved by one of the nation’s eight regional accreditation entities.

This makes some sense for quality control. The problem is that in order for an educational program — like one of the many computer programming and coding “boot camps” springing up across Utah — to acquire this stamp of approval, it must go through a review process that is effectively controlled by schools that are already accredited.

As a result of this accreditation arrangement, where the regulated have become the regulators, innovative models of career training are often restricted from gaining access to the students who want to learn but need federal financial help to do so. That’s why I have introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity (HERO) Act, which would allow states to create their own alternative systems of accrediting higher education providers.

Under the HERO Act, every state would be free to pursue innovative higher education models including professional training programs, apprenticeships, distance learning or even competency learning.

Some of these innovations would — and have — come from within our colleges and universities. Others would be created anew by education entrepreneurs. Those that served both students and employers the best would thrive and grow

And that really should be the focus of higher education reform: helping students. We’re driven to innovate not for our own personal satisfaction or convenience, but to make a difference in someone’s life and to help others fulfill their God-given potential.

Rethinking Occupational Licensing

July 15, 2016

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the American labor force – one of the economy’s core building blocks – faces many structural challenges today. Millions of Americans are out of work, and for a longer period of time – six months on average – than in recent economic recoveries. Millions more are underemployed, working in part-time jobs even though what they want and need is full-time work. And the share of Americans participating in the labor market is hovering near its lowest point since 1977.

Meanwhile, there’s a growing sense that today’s economic challenges are somehow different – more intractable – than those that we have overcome in the past. Americans aren’t just losing jobs, they’re losing faith in the future and in the basic fairness of the American economy.

A recent survey of than 1,500 unemployed Americans found that a full 83 of respondents agree that “The way the economic system is set up in the United States only benefits the rich.” And the worst part is, they’re not entirely wrong.

One of the most pernicious forms of economic privilege today is the proliferation of occupational licensing requirements imposed on American workers by state governments. Occupational licensing laws require individuals to meet particular qualifications – like passing an exam, obtaining a professional certification, or completing a training course – in order to work in certain jobs.

Ostensibly, the purpose of licensing requirements is to protect public health and safety. For certain occupations – like physicians or lawyers – this makes perfect sense. But what about truck drivers, athletic trainers, hair stylists, florists, preschool teachers, or pest exterminators? It’s hard to see why people who want to work in these jobs should be required to pass exams, complete extensive training, and obtain government permission before they can legally be hired. And yet that’s exactly what has happened in states across the country.

In 1950, fewer than 5 percent of American workers were subject to licensing requirements. Today, that figure stands at around 30 percent. And in many cases, would-be workers have to pay large sums of money or wait long periods of time – or both – just to obtain the government’s permission to work.
"The spirit of enterprise is still alive and well in this country. But too often misguided government policies stifle it before it can grow and fulfill its potential. Sadly, this is especially true for the most disadvantaged among us. "

The specific requirements vary across states and occupations. They range from the sensible to – more often – the absurd. But the upshot is always the same: by making it more difficult to enter an occupation, licensing requirements block younger and less fortunate workers from better and higher-paying jobs.

That’s why Senator Sasse and I recently introduced the Alternatives to Licensing that Lower Obstacles to Work (ALLOW) Act, a bill that leverages Congress’s Article I authority over federal enclaves – including the District of Columbia, military bases, and certain National Parks – to advance several models for licensing reform that state governments can follow.

The best part about this bill is that states can follow any one of these models right away. And at a time when the American worker is losing confidence in the future and the fairness of our economy, governors and state legislators should waste no time in implementing their own versions of these reforms.

The spirit of enterprise is still alive and well in this country. But too often misguided government policies stifle it before it can grow and fulfill its potential. Sadly, this is especially true for the most disadvantaged among us.

Rethinking our approach to occupational licensing laws – so that our economy has room for the full range of human talents, aspirations, and imaginations to flourish – is a modest but important step in making sure that our economy is set up to benefit the hard work of all Americans.

Make Congress Responsible Again

July 1, 2016

Washington is broken. And American politics in 2016 seems to be a competition to assign blame for the federal government’s dysfunction, rising costs, and habitual failure to perform even its most basic responsibilities. The usual suspects offer up their favorite villains: Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressive, insiders and outsiders all accuse each other.

But in this case the problem is not partisan or ideological; it’s structural. The reason the federal government isn’t working today is that it isn’t working properly.

The constitutional order set up by our Founders is breaking down. Specifically, the awesome powers of the federal Legislative Branch are increasingly being exercised by the Executive and Judicial Branches.

Conservatives have been warning about this for years, but it seems to me we don’t take the argument to its logical conclusion. Ultimately, the problem with unchecked executive and judicial hyper-activism isn’t the activism; it’s the “unchecked” part.

The pillars of Congress’s power are its core constitutional functions: legislating, budgeting, and oversight. That’s the work Representatives and Senators get hired to do, and – more to the point – get fired for doing poorly. But actually using these powers – especially in an era now of real-time electronic transparency - exposes Representatives and Senators to the ruthless public accountability embedded in Article I.

So the safest course for Congress is not to do that work well; it’s to get out of having to do it at all, by delegating our legislative power and surrendering our authority over federal spending to the Executive Branch, and by relinquishing our constitutional oversight powers to the Judicial Branch.

Congressional weakness costs us much more than dollars. The greater loss is to our culture, measured in the distrust, even contempt, Americans now express toward our public institutions.

Despite repeated so-called “change” elections, the casual abuse and dysfunction that defines modern Washington stays the same. Problems go unsolved. Corruption is ignored. Incompetence seems, if anything, to be rewarded. With Congress’s every new abdication, our entire system of government loses a little more of its citizens’ respect, a little more of its moral legitimacy.

The only good news in all this is that what a weak Congress has broken a strong Congress can fix. But only a strong Congress.
There is no substitute. There is only the House and Senate, their 535 members, and Congress’s collective will to do its duty to our Constitution and countrymen.

First, Congress should reassert its constitutional authority over federal regulations by requiring legislative approval of new major rules and regular re-assessments and re-authorizations of existing ones.

Second, Congress should modernize its obsolete budget process to get ourselves – and more importantly, the American people - out from under the false choice of Caesarism or shutdown.

And third, Congress should rein in Executive discretion. We should empower federal judges – who now defer to Executive agencies’ interpretations of laws and regulations - to conduct traditional judicial review in challenges against the Administrative State.

The only thing that putting Congress back in charge of federal policy would really accomplish is that it would put the American people back in charge of Washington – regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Which, in the end, is all a strong and healthy Congress can ever provide to the American people: a republic, if we can keep it.

Bill of Rights is a Feature – Not a Bug – of our Government

June 24, 2016

Since the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida nearly two weeks ago – the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – Congress has been engrossed in a debate about what can be done to prevent something like this from happening again.

In their grief for the victims, and in their concern about the safety of our communities, many Americans have come to the same conclusion: “something must be done.” Unfortunately, many of members of Congress believe that those four words – “something must be done” – give the federal government permission to do whatever it wants.

But the government can’t do whatever it wants, not even at a time of great anxiety and insecurity. In fact, there are several things that the government is expressly prohibited from doing under any circumstances.

The government may not infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” It may not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Nor may it deprive any person “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

These are just a few of the explicit limitations on government action – a few of Americans’ core civil liberties – listed in the Bill of Rights. They are not negotiable. Yet many of the legislative proposals that have emerged in recent days run roughshod over these basic constitutional rights.

One such measure would give law-enforcement agencies power to access Americans’ Internet browsing history and email metadata – which can be analyzed to reveal intimate details about a person’s life – without a warrant, probable cause, or judicial review by a federal court. Another measure, the Terrorist Firearms and Prevention Act, would prohibit individuals on the government’s secret No Fly List or Selectee List from purchasing firearms.

Everyone agrees that terrorists should be prevented from purchasing guns, but this proposal would deny Americans their Second Amendment rights based on a mere suspicion from the FBI that they are engaged in terrorist activity. The denial of a constitutional right should require more proof than a reasonable suspicion – a standard so low that it doesn’t even justify an arrest.

In defending these measures, some proponents have lamented the difficulty of working around the core civil liberties listed in the Bill of Rights. But this is a feature, not a bug, of our constitutional system.

Americans’ constitutional rights are not nuisances that the government must accommodate. Protecting these rights is the reason that government exists. As we continue consideration of these measures next week, we must work to ensure that Congress fulfills this purpose.