To be claimed
Member, Foreign Relations
Member, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Member, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Member, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Member, Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families
Member, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Member, Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation
Member, Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy
Chair, Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism
Member, Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security
Member, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management
2005 Ford Mustang Convertible
Date of Wedding Anniversary:
— Father's Name:
— Father's Occupation:
Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain
Meat Loaf Cakes
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Roy Orbison, The Beatles, The Eagles, The Kingston Trio, Alan Jackson, Toby Keith, Brooks and Dunn, George Strait, Clint Black, and Garth Brooks
Favorite President and Why:
The pursuit of the difficult makes men strong George Romney.
Favorite TV Shows:
Chauffeur for the university physics department
Hobbies or Special Talents:
Spending time with family - especially grandchildren, running, reading, skiing, horseback riding with my wife, waterskiing, and watching movies.
— Mother's Name:
— Mother's Occupation:
— Number of Grandchildren:
Personal Hero and Why:
— Pets (include names):
Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Unknown Position
Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Unknown Position
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Unknown Position
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- Unknown Position
S.Amdt.861 - Purpose: To provide that funds authorized by the Act are available for the defense of the Armed Forces and United States citizens against attack by foreign hostile forces.
Latest Action: 06/24/2019 Amendment SA 861 proposed by Senator McConnell for Senator Romney to Amendment SA 764. To provide that funds authorized by the Act are available for the defense of the Armed Forces and United States citizens against attack by foreign hostile forces.
By Mitt Romney: On March 22, 2021, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that: "The creation of a national monument is of no small consequence." We agree, as would all those who have argued for, or against, such designations. Monument decisions immediately impact ranching, energy, and recreation industries, in addition to local and tribal governments who rely on the land for their livelihoods. In fact, many of our friends and neighbors are still bitterly divided over the creation of some of Utah's biggest monuments. The Chief Justice is signaling a willingness to reconsider the status quo, and we should too. We are once again united -- this time in asking the Biden administration to work with us. There is an opportunity to find a permanent legislative solution to this problem at Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, rather than repeating -- and possibly worsening -- the mistakes of the past. America's citizens, tribal governments, communities, and industries should not be pawns in a political game. Decisions about these issues belong in the halls of Congress, where elected representatives have an opportunity to debate on behalf of their constituents. United as the Utah delegation, we strongly support Congress making these decisions because legislation is the only way to give a voice to all stakeholders. While the chief justice went on to explain that the Court had declined to review the case in question -- Massachusetts Lobstermen v. Raimondo -- his comments resonate with a question on our minds: why is it a good idea to allow the Antiquities Act (a century-old statute whose authors grossly underestimated its potential for abuse) to treat entire states like pawns on a political chess board? We do not believe that anyone, even a president, should be empowered to unilaterally create overreaching national monuments, instantly limiting access to resources upon which local economies depend. In 1996, President Clinton created the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Utah's governor, federal delegation, and the overwhelming majority of our citizens were firmly united in opposition to the monument. It didn't matter. Ignoring this resistance entirely, President Clinton made the official announcement from Arizona. With an out-of-state photo op and the simple stroke of a pen, 1.8 million acres of productive land were immediately transformed into a national monument. President Clinton moved on to his next event, and the media cycle progressed. Nearly a quarter of a century later, Utah's wound has not healed. In 2016, President Obama swept another 1.3 million acres into a new monument. This time, the Bears Ears national monument locked up invaluable land in Southeastern Utah. Once again, Utah's governor and federal delegation were united in opposition to the move. Once again, thanks to the Antiquities Act, it didn't make a difference. A staggering swath of land -- totaling roughly the size of Delaware -- had been placed in a restrictive status, all by the stroke of an executive pen and without critical local input. Nearly a year after taking office, President Trump travelled to Utah and made a dramatic announcement: He would reduce the boundaries of both monuments to return large tracts of land to less restrictive management. For the past three years, the land management agencies have written and implemented new management plans aligned with the smaller monuments. Then, on President Biden's first day in office, he announced that the Department of Interior would be reviewing the boundary changes made by President Trump. If expanded unilaterally instead of with legislation, this would perpetuate the cycle of divisiveness, ultimately creating uncertainty for the land and all those who care about it. Few states have experienced this kind of whiplash because only a few Western states have large tracts of public lands like Utah, which is 67 percent federally managed. Several tribal governments felt cut out of the reduction process, just like the majority of Utahns felt when both national monuments were created by Presidents Obama and Clinton. This highlights the inherent divisiveness of the Antiquities Act and proves the only way to end this "ping ponging" is through permanent legislation passed by Congress. Legal challenges to the creation of national monuments have yet to be successful. As a result, states like Utah have had far too few options for protecting their public land from presidents who get generous support from environmental groups. Chief Justice Roberts' words, written in regard to a marine monument off the East Coast, resonated out West. They are giving hope to many who have felt voiceless and powerless on an issue that greatly impacts our state. For decades, politicians, environmental groups, and recreation interests have operated under the assumption that presidents didn't need to exercise restraint when creating national monuments. Even worse, it seems they've been operating under the assumption that there should be no consequences to doing so. Right now, we have a chance to right these wrongs. Chief Justice Roberts's words highlight the sensibility of this opportunity. The Biden administration is currently deciding whether to expand national monument boundaries in our state, yet again -- over the unified objections of the state, yet again. Now is the time to return to limiting the Antiquities Act designations to the smallest parcel necessary to protect antiquities, as intended, and providing our state a voice. Let's leave the landscape national monument decisions to Congress who can solicit input, consensus, and resources in a way no president could. We are asking the Biden administration, tribes, conservation interests, local interests, and multiple users of public land to join us in deciding the best way to manage Utah's public lands: Through an accountable and involved legislative process. Mitt Romney is the junior senator from Utah, Mike Lee is the senior senator from Utah, Chris Stewart represents Utah's 2nd District, Burgess Owens represents Utah's 4th District, John Curtis represents Utah's 3rd District and Blake Moore represents Utah's 1st District. Opinion published in The Hill.
By Mitt Romney: As the Beijing Olympic Games approach, it is increasingly clear that China, under the control of the Chinese Communist Party does not deserve an Olympic showcase. Because it is too late to move the Winter Games scheduled for Beijing next February, some have proposed, understandably, that the United States boycott the Games. China deserves our condemnation. The Chinese Communist Party has reneged on its agreement to allow Hong Kong self rule; it has brutally suppressed peaceful demonstrators and incarcerated respected journalists. It is exacting genocide against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities; Uighur women are forcefully sterilized or impregnated by Han Chinese men. Adults, ripped from their families, are sentenced into forced labor and concentration camps. Among ethnic Chinese, access to uncensored broadcast news and social media is prohibited. Citizens are surveyed, spied upon and penalized for attending religious services or expressing dissent. Prohibiting our athletes from competing in China is the easy, but wrong, answer. Our athletes have trained their entire lives for this competition and have primed their abilities to peak in 2022. When I helped organize the Salt Lake City Games in 2002, I gained an understanding of the enormous sacrifice made by our Olympic hopefuls and their families. It would be unfair to ask a few hundred young American athletes to shoulder the burden of our disapproval. It could also be counterproductive. The Olympic Games aren't just a showcase for the host nation, but a platform for values both American and universal. If our athletes skip the Games, millions of young Americans at home might skip watching it. And the Olympic Games are one of the most enduring demonstrations of the great qualities of the human spirit on the world stage: We witness determination, sacrifice, patriotism, endurance, sportsmanship. We would also lose the global symbolism of our young American heroes standing atop the medals podium, hand to their hearts, as "The Star-Spangled Banner" plays on Chinese soil. Moreover, if an athlete boycott is meant to influence the behavior of the home country or delegitimize its government, it probably won't work. When President Jimmy Carter applied an athlete boycott to the Moscow Olympics in 1980, the result was more medals for Russians and dashed dreams for American athletes. No one seriously believes it improved Soviet behavior. So if we shouldn't forbid American athletes from competing, then how should we meaningfully repudiate China's atrocities? The right answer is an economic and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics. American spectators -- other than families of our athletes and coaches -- should stay at home, preventing us from contributing to the enormous revenues the Chinese Communist Party will raise from hotels, meals and tickets. American corporations that routinely send large groups of their customers and associates to the Games should send them to U.S. venues instead. Rather than send the traditional delegation of diplomats and White House officials to Beijing, the president should invite Chinese dissidents, religious leaders and ethnic minorities to represent us. An economic and diplomatic boycott should include collaboration with NBC, which has already done important work to reveal the reality of the Chinese Communist Party's repression and brutality. NBC can refrain from showing any jingoistic elements of the opening and closing ceremonies and instead broadcast documented reports of China's abuses. We should enlist our friends around the world to join our economic boycott. Limiting spectators, selectively shaping our respective delegations and refraining from broadcasting Chinese propaganda would prevent China from reaping many of the rewards it expects from the Olympics. Finally, America and the nations of the free world need to have a heart-to-heart with the International Olympic Committee. The I.O.C. has hoped that awarding Games to repressive regimes would tend to lessen their abuses. But hope has too often met a different reality -- in Hitler's Germany, Putin's Russia and Xi's China. In authoritarian states, the Olympics has more often been a tool of propaganda than a lever of reform. Let us demonstrate our repudiation of China's abuses in a way that will hurt the Chinese Communist Party rather than our American athletes: reduce China's revenues, shut down their propaganda, and expose their abuses. An economic and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics -- while proceeding with the Games -- is the right answer. Opinion published in the New York Times.
Four years ago, Donald Trump’s candidacy was the craziest thing any of us had ever seen. But since then, his opponents have gone so far off the deep end that they have made him seem the sensible alternative. For whatever reason – jealousy? bad advisers? – Mitt Romney hasn’t come to the realization the rest of us have: that President Trump is now the thin orange line between order and chaos. Happy enough to accept the president’s endorsement last year, Romney quickly turned on him to become a virtue-signaling headline-chaser. He began his Senate tenure with an attack piece in the once admirable Washington Post, refusing to support border security, voting against a judicial nominee for inconsequential reasons, and supporting sexual assault allegations cribbed from an episode of “Law & Order.” If Utah Republicans had known that this was the real Mitt Romney, we would not have selected him. Romney’s smug contrarianism undermines his credibility when there’s the need for legitimate debate – such as on U.S. policy in Syria. But the main victim of Romney’s fecklessness is that credibility. He’s even followed the herd on calling the president racist – even though Trump did better with minorities than Romney did himself in 2012 and is poised to do even better next year. And where baseless calls of racism are concerned, the Democrats and their allied media have spent the last 10 years playing 52-card pickup – every card is the race card. Romney has even voiced support for impeachment calls as some mysterious GOP donors – or more likely breathless headline writers – are calling for him to mount an intra-party insurgency. This is all happening at the same time Trump is raising record amounts for his reelection and enjoying approval ratings within the party of about 90%. Meanwhile, Romney has the worst disapproval rating of any member of Utah’s congressional delegation. Romney could not get reelected in his home state next year, let alone dethrone the president. Utah’s junior senator is operating under the assumption that it’s still 2016 and there is a more traditional alternative for safeguarding America and the world stability we provide. Spoiler: It’s not, and there isn’t. While Trump’s victory was a warning that Democrats needed to return to Bill Clinton-style centrism, the party has instead hit the snooze button on common sense. We live in a binary system, and it appears that the Democrats are going to nominate a Marxist next year – one of two candidates who think they can centrally plan the U.S. economy but probably couldn’t run a Burger King for a day. If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders got as much power as they desire, they would crash the economy, which would spark a global depression, which could (if history is any guide) trigger World War III. Meanwhile, the Trump economy is the strongest America has seen in 50 years, with a surge of manufacturing jobs, energy independence, and record growth – all things Barack Obama assured us couldn’t be done without a magic wand. Leftist calls to “fundamentally transform” our society come with a very disturbing embrace of Gestapo-style tactics, whether it’s thought-suppression in academia or online, or actual street-level political violence. So-called progressives are attacking, as never before, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion, and the right for law-abiding citizens to own firearms – all while insisting that Trump is somehow the “fascist.” So, on the one hand we have a party whose policies lead toward failure, ruin, and urban rot – a party that demands total control over every aspect of American life but cannot even run monolithically Democratic cities like Portland or San Francisco. On the other hand, protecting us from that we have a guy who sends mean tweets and calls people names. I’d call that a bargain. And I’d call Mitt Romney jealous and petty for not acknowledging this. The only people he’s impressing with his posturing are people who didn’t vote for him in 2012. Given the threat of the “progressive” left, there is hardly any such thing as a former Trump supporter. There are, however, many, many former Romney supporters.Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/