Mike Lee

Do you support the idea of revisiting that ban so that the U.S. could become a leader yet again in supersonic flight?

I certainly understand the need for the government to retain a portion of it.

I think it is important we make sure that there is a thriving, robust market and that we do everything we can to make sure that we do not put impediments in the way of the development of that market within the United States.

I want to impress upon you, as much as I am capable of communicating, and I do so respectfully but with great urgency, the fact that this needs to happen.

Because Minneapolis, that Senator Klobuchar said is the number one in the United States in wireless speeds, because they have LAA rolled out with small cells--that could also go in the 6 gigahertz band.

That's good to know, and certainly gives a lot of us hope for the future, and hope for how this is all going to work.

Spectrum-sharing agreements will need to function as a commonly used alternative to current methods.

It's clear that the United States economy has benefited tremendously from the fact that we have been more or less on the cutting edge of technology in this area.

It's imperative that we free up more spectrum for licensed use and for unlicensed use, particularly in the 3-gigahertz to 6-gigahertz band.

I am personally a strong supporter of the right-to-try concept, and I am hopeful for the results of policies like that and what they can bring.

There is an old saying in politics that goes something like this: Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.

A fair and stable permitting process is all the mining industry really asks for.

It seems to me that there are so many minerals on the list, not just beryllium but including beryllium, that happen to be found disproportionately in rural areas of the country.

We are swiftly approaching a point where the word 'digital' will be an unnecessary adjective for trade.

Congress, it seems to me, as the lawmaking organ of the Federal Government has a responsibility to make sure that these resources are managed effectively.

Federal agencies pay a pretty small fee for their use of spectrum. Is that right?

They pay a fee, and one could argue that it is smaller than what they would pay if they were, say, a private, for-profit business enterprise.

As you are aware, there are a lot of opportunities for innovation in our economy that relate to the allocation of spectrum.

If you have got a cost for the government that is relatively low and if it is accurate to say that some huge swath of U.S. Government-owned spectrum--say 60 percent--is allocated to a U.S. Government agency, that is a recipe for a certain…

Which is of concern to many of us here and ought to be more so than it is within Congress.

To avoid clarity, I think that is a good description, to avoid clarity in a place where morality, decency, and justice would seem to demand clarity and where the Constitution provides clarity.

What I am saying is, in land that is held by the Federal Government and isn't being put to use currently, that is an opportunity for Congress to look and say, can it be put to better or different use.

What about Congress? Do you think there are things Congress could do to impact at least the Federal role, the role the Federal Government might have in public land states, for example?

Are there policies we could pursue, through legislation or otherwise, that would help alleviate this burden?

The restrictions, the inability to develop land locally, be it from a Federal restriction, a State restriction, or a local restriction, is a chief barrier, in many instances, to people finding meaningful work and opportunity.