By Sen. Mike Lee Friends--like the U.S. and the U.K.--are invaluable in a pinch. Of all the things shared by the United States and Britain, perhaps the most important is the common law--a system of law that isn't imposed from above but arises from the people in the form of cases and precedents. Engrained in common law is the concept of "partnership." Partnerships allow individuals to cooperate by sharing knowledge and resources for mutual benefit. They are also voluntary, allowing each member to freely associate, and require each to value the welfare of his counterpart as much as his own. Partnerships bring about peace, prosperity and productivity. We work together, so we both benefit, and there is no greater exemplar of a partnership between nations than that of the U.S. and the United Kingdom. No two nations have worked more successfully together. No two peoples have done more to expand and defend liberty, and to achieve peace and prosperity. Economists have known since Adam Smith and David Ricardo that free trade increases prosperity at home and abroad. It brings efficiency, innovation and better products at lower costs. Between nations with similar worker protection regimes, developed economies, robust legal systems and a common language--such as the U.S. and U.K.--the usual qualms over fair compensation and intellectual property protections disappear. The figures all show that global free trade has done more to reduce poverty around the world than have other measures, including government-led initiatives. The economic ties between our nations are already strong. In 2019 the trading relationship in goods and services between our countries was measured at $273 billion; and the U.S. is Britain's single largest trading partner. A free trade agreement would allow even more goods and services to flow more easily between our countries and open the potential for expanded commercial partnerships and investments in emerging industries. The current pandemic and supply-chain turmoil has confirmed that friends are invaluable in a pinch. Global relationships are unsteady. Many governments do not know what the future of their trading relationships will look like. When uncertainty has struck in the past, the American and British people have joined forces for their mutual benefit and common good. As history demonstrates, the combined might of that partnership has steadied the world through its greatest peril. Now, facing an aggressive and expansionist China, Americans and Britons have the opportunity again to join forces and emerge from this crisis stronger than ever--for the benefit of our countries, and nations across the globe. Free trade and free markets have ensured that we do not have to wait in queues for bread. Our common law, common history and common aims should ensure that we do not have to wait in the queue for the benefits of a free trade agreement. Now is the time for both governments to exercise good faith and reach an agreement that will benefit us both.

By Sen. Mike Lee Among the many clear signs of the deterioration of American community and family life, one in particular stands out: Nearly half of all children will spend some time outside of an intact family by their late teens. As detailed in a recent report from the Joint Economic Committee's Social Capital Project, The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home, family stability has steadily deteriorated over the past 50 years. The trends this report documents are especially troubling because it is often America's most vulnerable who experience the greatest family instability today. Research consistently finds that children raised in an intact family have more positive outcomes than children who are not. A healthy, married-parents home provides children with stability and consistent access to the two parents who gave them life, as well as to the resources those parents provide -- financial and otherwise. But marriage rates in the United States have declined, divorce has increased, and the share of children born outside of marriage has climbed. For example, between 1962 and 2019, the percentage of women ages 15 to 44 who were married dropped from 71 percent to 42 percent. Over roughly this same period, the number of women aged 50 to 54 who had ever divorced increased from 29 percent to 41 percent. Furthermore, the fraction of children born outside of marriage climbed from just 5 percent to a staggering 40 percent. Trends in family stability are not the same across the board, however. There is a stark divide along economic lines. Highly educated Americans are far less likely to experience family instability than those with less education. For example, among mothers without a college degree, most births take place outside of marriage today, compared with just 20 percent of births among women with low or moderate education levels in 1970. In contrast, only about 10 percent of births to mothers with a college degree occur outside marriage today. Minorities are more likely to experience family breakdown as well. The stark socioeconomic divides in family stability raise the question of whether economic causes are to blame for family decline. Many researchers argue that declining wages among working-class men since the 1970s have rendered such men less "marriageable." But while the hourly wages of young men declined from the early 1970s through the mid-1990s, their wages have substantially increased since then, and yet this has not yielded increasing family stability. Moreover, the decline of family stability began prior to the 1970s, when the American economy was booming. And the United States has experienced far more severe economic downturns in earlier eras, such as the Great Depression, without substantial disruptions to family stability. Instead of economic decline, the explanation for increased family instability may actually be rising affluence, which has loosened moral constraints around sex and marriage, placed a greater premium on personal fulfillment and professional pursuits, and increased the economic independence of women. These changes are not all inherently bad, but they do tend to weaken the family unit. And while the cultural changes facilitated by affluence have influenced everyone, today's unscripted relationship path -- filled with looser, more nebulous commitments -- is far riskier for those with fewer resources. While more affluent Americans have the motivation to avoid the pitfalls along the way to marriage -- such as unwed childbearing -- in order to keep an education and career on track, Americans with fewer resources do not have such opportunity costs. Government programs for low-income Americans also play a role in family instability. Today's government welfare system makes it much more feasible to raise a child outside of marriage (albeit still with greater challenge) than in past eras, making it less necessary for fathers to step up to provide for their children. On top of that, the government welfare system actually penalizes marriage, putting up barriers for lower-income couples to wed. Despite family breakdown, the majority of Americans see marriage and family as an important goal, even though fewer are reaching it. To strengthen America's families, an array of approaches will be needed, and all hands should be on deck to shore up this vital institution -- particularly in communities where family instability is most prevalent. Congress should work to reduce marriage penalties in government welfare programs while experimenting with work requirements and time limits to encourage independence. States and communities can focus on making marriage and relationship education widespread, as Utah has done through its healthy-marriage initiative. Other approaches to strengthening marriage and the family could include media campaigns on the benefits of marriage, programs to prevent teen pregnancy, and state efforts to provide reconciliation options for couples on the brink of divorce. Although the trends in family stability are troubling, there is still much that can be done to increase the strength of America's families. Given what's at stake for the happiness and well-being of the nation, it's crucial that we work towards this goal.

By Patrick J. Leahy and Mike Lee The Fourth Amendment is clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." While the Founders could not have imagined the technology of today, the amendment should leave no doubt that our "effects" include our private emails, texts, images and calls, which often contain the most personal details of our lives. And yet, a law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows our government to secretly surveil Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents, a process that often falls short of our fundamental constitutional principles. Last year, the Justice Department's inspector general discovered 17 serious errors or omissions in the FBI's FISA applications to surveil presidential campaign adviser Carter Page. And these significant errors are not isolated incidents. When the inspector general recently performed a sampling of 29 FBI applications for FISA surveillance, he found an average of 20 "issues" on 25 of 29 of those applications. These include a failure to disclose all exculpatory evidence -- evidence that might call the government's suspicions into question -- to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees FISA surveillance requests. Ensuring that a court has access to such evidence is a basic due process right guaranteed to all Americans. While the inspector general did not find that these errors were politically motivated, they are nonetheless unacceptable and highlight the need for real reform. Such reform has become even more important in light of a bill recently passed by the House -- and still under consideration by the Senate -- to reauthorize several FISA programs. One of them, Section 215, allows the government to obtain the information we give to businesses -- from Google searches to genetic profiles from 23andMe to our Amazon purchase histories -- with no need for a probable-cause warrant. To see your information, the government needs merely to claim it is "relevant" to a national security investigation. Section 215 also allows the government to conduct FISA surveillance on a great deal of First Amendment-protected activity, which places journalists, religious and ethnic minorities, political groups and others under threat. To address this and other problems with existing law, we are leading a bipartisan group of senators that will vote for a reauthorization of these FISA authorities, but only if we include additional reforms that are necessary to protect Americans' privacy and the Fourth Amendment. The key to our proposal is to substantially strengthen a program that currently allows FISA judges, in very limited circumstances, to appoint outside legal scholars -- called "amici"-- to independently analyze FBI surveillance requests that are particularly sensitive. Out of thousands of cases, FISA judges have called for such an independent review by a court-appointed "amicus" only 16 times. Yet this protection is critical because, unlike every courtroom you may have stepped into or any court in a TV drama, the FISA court is not adversarial -- meaning there is only a government lawyer and a judge, but no one to advocate for Americans under surveillance. We propose measures that would authorize and actively encourage judges in this secret court to seek independent amicus reviews in all sensitive cases -- such as those involving significant First Amendment issues -- thereby adding a layer of protection for those who will likely never know they have been targeted for secret surveillance. We also propose that these independent advisers be given the tools necessary to provide effective oversight over the FBI and National Security Agency. For example, the House bill merely requires that the government certify to the FISA court that exculpatory evidence is fairly reflected in its application to the FISA court. But our amendment would require that such exculpatory information also be provided to the FISA court and these independent advisers upon request so they can provide meaningful advice to the court. Our amendment would also specifically protect the First Amendment rights of the media, religious and political organizations, public officials and campaigns. Recognizing that the targeting of any of these domestic groups or officials could affect the rights of all Americans, our amendment specifically requires the appointment of independent advisers whenever substantial political or religious liberties are involved. Our colleagues, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), will also propose an amendment to prohibit the collection, without probable cause, of sensitive information such as Web browsing and Internet search history. Our coalition of the concerned is growing. Americans across the political spectrum are rightfully alarmed at the recent parade of news showing how secret surveillance is really conducted. Every senator who cares about constituents' privacy should vote to bring surveillance programs into harmony with our nation's founding principles. Our amendment -- and the Wyden-Daines amendment -- will help achieve that important objective.