The State’s Legislature’s State-Tribal Relations Committee met yesterday, and similar to their prior meeting, it leaves a person scratching their head. Every time they meet it turns into a soapbox for some committee members to throw rocks at the administration, and complain that Governor Noem is somehow being disrespectful because she didn’t come to the meeting and kiss their ring.

In the latest meeting yesterday, it seems that the focus of the grumbling is over a lawsuit that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed against the US Government.

As noted in the meeting:

Ravnsborg noted the June 22 lawsuit over checkpoints that was filed in federal court by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe against U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his administration over the checkpoints. Ravnsborg said the state of South Dakota isn’t a party.

Ravnsborg said he has a concern about potential interactions between tribal members at checkpoints and visiting motorcyclists and others headed to Sturgis for the August rally. Ravnsborg said he has discussed the situation with Ron Parsons, the U.S. attorney for South Dakota, but hasn’t talked with CRST Chairman Harold Frazier.

and..

Haugaard, an attorney, said the CRST lawsuit could be helpful in clarifying the federal law and he said the legislative committee could consider an amicus brief.

and…

Senator Lance Russell, a Hot Springs Republican, said it was “disrespectful” that the governor chose to not meet with the committee after being invited to its previous meeting. Russell said he recently went through several Oglala Sioux Tribe checkpoints and thought the questions were appropriate.

and..

He said he received photographs of people “with Trump hats and Noem hats looking to do some damage” on other reservations, such as Pine Ridge, in response to those checkpoints. “This is a real concern to us,” Lengkeek said

and..

Bordeaux said the committee can call the governor to testify: “I think this committee is owed a response.”

Read the entire story here.

It sounds like there’s a lot of wrong-headedness going on here.  To provide some context, I’d draw your attention to a letter from the US Department of Interior to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

6 10 20 Frazier_CRST by Pat Powers on Scribd

If you’re wondering why Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has a concern over “potential interactions between tribal members at checkpoints and visiting motorcyclists,” one reason might be found within this letter between the CRST, and the Department of Interior (Tara Sweeney, Asst Sec for Indian Affairs):

Per the OJS fact finding operation, we have identified numerous instances in which individuals placed at CRST checkpoints along United States Route 212 (US 212) and South Dakota Highway 63 (SD 63) are presenting themselves as CRST police officers and prohibiting access to US 212 and SD 63. This information is consistent with reports previously provided by State of South Dakota (State) officials, health officers and private citizens.

At check points along US 212 and SD 63, individual operators were observed by OJS wearing tribal police badges and tribal police insignia on their clothing. In conversations with certain individuals operating CRST checkpoints, OJS has learned that checkpoint operators do not meet the below requirements set forth in Federal regulations and the Tribe’s law enforcement contract.

and…

CRST’s actions to deputize individuals who have not completed a background investigation and/or basic police training constitute a threat to public safety. Permitting such untrained individuals to restrict access to public highways presents an unacceptable risk for conflict, liability, and violence.

What the Assistant Secretary is saying to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is pointing out is that they are setting up an untrained group of random people to restrict access on US and State Highways, and it’s a risk for conflict, liability, and violence.  A point underlined by the Attorney General in the committee meeting.

Nevermind that there’s plenty of hyped up claims involved, such as with the completely and utterly ridiculous statement that because of the checkpoints, people “with Trump hats and Noem hats (are) looking to do some damage”

What’s the response? We have some Republican legislators who take the opportunity to claim the Governor is somehow being disrespectful and needs better communication. And that the legislative committee should file their own amicus brief in the lawsuit… (because legislative committees file amicus briefs in federal lawsuits all the time?)

Why does all this seem familiar?  Maybe because it’s a reflection of what we’re seeing in the streets of Seattle and Atlanta.

You have local governments allowing groups to set up their own barricades to interdict traffic, ignoring the rule of law.  You have apologists claiming that allowing it somehow promotes sovereignty and equality, and being critical of “the man.”

Law enforcement is doing their best not to throw fire on it, but they know it’s going to end poorly (as it has in Seattle and Atlanta), because it’s a mess with untrained people claiming authority, and it’s not legal. And they’re backed by the Trump administration agreeing that it’s unlawful, illegal and dangerous.

And somehow Nancy Pelosi believes that President Trump needs to come to committee to testify…  Sorry. And certain members of the committee think they need to call Governor Noem to testify.

Do I have that about right?

The legislature should stay in their lane, and concern itself with writing South Dakota laws.

Because whether they realize it or not, they seem to be giving a lot of cover to those who are picking and choosing the laws they like.

Johnson Helps Lead Bipartisan Effort Calling on FCC to Strengthen Support for Telehealth Providers During Pandemic & Beyond

41 Lawmakers to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: “The Costs of Standing Up Telehealth Programs and the Insufficient Access to Broadband Internet in Many Parts of the Country are Hindering Providers and Patients from Realizing the Full Potential of These Expanded Flexibilities”

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  U.S. Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL) today led a 41-Member, bipartisan effort calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide greater certainty and support to healthcare providers standing up telehealth services, which are playing an increasingly important role in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a letter sent to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the bipartisan group of lawmakers described how high costs and insufficient broadband internet connectivity prevent many rural patients and providers from fully accessing the benefits of telehealth. The lawmakers called for more information to be made available to Congress regarding the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, as they expressed concerns that many eligible providers did not receiving an award from the initial funding package.

“We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic,” states the letter. “We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.”

“In Central Virginia, we’ve seen firsthand how seniors, veterans, and families have been able to access both routine appointments and lifesaving care through telemedicine. Especially during this public health crisis, we need to keep our most vulnerable neighbors safe, and thankfully, many of our region’s healthcare providers use telehealth to deliver quality care without putting Virginians at greater risk,” said Spanberger. “Unfortunately, unreliable internet access and rising costs often prevent patients from accessing these telehealth services. That’s why I led 40 of my colleagues — Republicans and Democrats — in emphasizing the critical importance of telehealth. I’ve been encouraged by the strong support these innovative, cutting edge healthcare programs have received in Congress so far, and I hope Congress and the FCC will take bold steps that can widen the adoption of these programs and expand high-quality, affordable healthcare access across our rural communities.”

“Because of the CARES Act, hospitals around the country were able to apply for funding through the Federal Communications Commission to increase state access to telehealth services. This program permitted South Dakota hospitals to purchase telehealth equipment, ensuring our hospitals could meet the needs of patients virtually,” said Johnson. “If this program is working across the country like it is in South Dakota, we should reopen the application process to meet demand. I’m looking forward to hearing from the FCC on the viability of such an important effort to expand health care access to Americans.”

“We are grateful for a recent award by the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth program that is supporting telehealth equipment in order to expand our telehealth outreach to care for patients during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” said Dr. Karen S. Rheuban, Director, University of Virginia Center for Telehealth. “We support the program’s continuation, should additional funds be made available, and we appreciate Rep. Spanberger’s interest in this important program.”

“The rising importance of telehealth services is particularly important in our rural areas,” said Rick Shinn, Director of Government Affairs, Virginia Community Healthcare Association. “We applaud Rep. Spanberger and her colleagues on moving forward to bring telehealth services into the mainstream of healthcare.”

Click here to read the letter, and the full letter text is also below.

—

Dear Commissioner Pai,

We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act.

Telehealth is playing an increasingly important role in the delivery of health care services across the country. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic. We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.

Telehealth is especially relevant during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using telehealth platforms, patients can see providers with minimal risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. We are pleased that Congress has acted through successive bills to expand flexibilities for federal health care programs to pay for telehealth services during this emergency.

We recognize that the costs of standing up telehealth programs and the insufficient access to broadband internet in many parts of the country are hindering providers and patients from realizing the full potential of these expanded flexibilities, especially during this pandemic. Partially to address these concerns, Congress included a $200 million appropriation in the CARES Act for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to support health care providers’ provision of telehealth services needed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.

FCC moved quickly to begin distributing the CARES Act funds. On April 2, 2020, FCC announced the program and set the maximum award at $1 million. The program has proven to be very popular, and on June 25^th, FCC announced it would no longer accept applications from providers for funding from the program. Finally, on July 8^th, FCC announced the release of the final tranche of approved funding applications from the original $200 million appropriation.

Providers in our districts are very interested in participating in the program. However, we are concerned that many eligible providers and worthy telehealth projects did not receive funding from the initial appropriation.

As such, we respectfully ask for additional data around the following questions:

1. How much more in funding would the agency require to fulfill all pending applications?
2. What was the average funding amount requested by applicants?
3. What technical assistance has the FCC provided to smaller providers that lack experience in applying for eligibility determinations from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or in dealing with the agency generally?
4. Please provide information about the number of awards and the amount of funding that went to:
   1. Providers in rural and urban areas;
   2. Each category of provider type as described by Section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
   3. Providers who primarily serve high-risk and vulnerable patients; and
   4. Any additional information that will facilitate Congressional understanding of the program’s impact.
5. What is the average number of patients served by each award?
6. What is the average time FCC takes to process reimbursements for invoiced services and devices by providers?

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters.

###

From Facebook, Governor Noem is out reeling them in on Lake Oahe. From Jason Mitchell Outdoors Television:

Lenore Sutton, the newborn daughter of former Democrat State Senator & Gubernatorial Candidate Billie Sutton, apparently passed away last week on July 15th.  Please keep the family in your prayers.

No Surprise Tax Bills for COVID Relief Workers
By Sen. John Thune

As New York struggled with tens of thousands of coronavirus cases, medical professionals from across the United States headed to New York City to help. Their work was crucial to New York’s efforts to contain the pandemic and undoubtedly helped save lives. And in May, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced their reward: tax bills from the state of New York.

That’s right. Tax bills. Doctors and nurses who voluntarily crossed state lines to come help – in some cases, sacrificing vacation time to do so – are now being informed that they will owe New York’s substantial income tax on any money they made while they were there. And while individuals can generally receive a tax credit from their home state for tax paid to another state, thus avoiding double taxation of that income, many will be paying a much higher tax rate than normal on money they earned during their time in New York. This situation is even more perverse for residents of states like South Dakota that don’t have an income tax against which a credit can be claimed. These individuals will simply have to absorb the entirety of the unexpected expense.

These medical professionals are not alone. They are confronting a challenge that many Americans who regularly travel for work face – a challenge that has been highlighted by the coronavirus pandemic. And that is navigating the complexities of paying income tax when you spend time working in different states throughout the year.

Generally your income is taxed by the state in which your income is earned, your home state. But some states – like New York – aggressively tax individuals whom they deem to have earned income in their state, even if the “income” earned is simply what the individual makes for attending a one-day conference in the state. Other states allow individuals to work for a longer period – as long as 60 days in some instances – before they require a nonresident to file an income tax return in their state. If you work as a traveling nurse, a salesman, or a corporate trainer – all jobs that might regularly take you to multiple states in a year – tax time can be absolutely bewildering as you try to navigate the different rules of the different states in which you’ve worked over the past year.

The tax situation facing mobile workers has long called out for a solution. And for the past four Congresses, I’ve championed legislation – the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act – that would help bring certainty to workers, states, and employers by establishing a 30-day threshold that would apply to nonresident employees working in all 50 states. Spend 30 days or fewer in another state during the year, and your income would still be taxed in the state where your work “home base” is located. Spend more than 30 days in any given state, and you would be subject to income tax in your home state as well as in the state in which you’re temporarily working. Establishing this uniform standard would make it a lot easier for employees to figure out when they might incur additional state income taxes as a result of work-related travel.

The pandemic has highlighted the need for this legislation – as well as the need for additional pandemic-specific measures to fully protect health care workers and remote workers from negative tax effects. I recently introduced a revised version of my bill in the Senate – the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act. This legislation contains all the provisions of my Mobile Workforce legislation, but it also adds a special 90-day provision governing health care workers who voluntarily traveled to other states to work during the pandemic. This should ensure that no health care workers face higher tax bills as a result of their willingness to help out in pandemic-stricken areas.

My revised bill also addresses the potential problems facing remote workers as a result of the pandemic. Many workers who generally work in another state from their place of residence – for example, New Jersey residents who work in New York City – worked from home during the pandemic because of stay-at-home orders and similar measures. Now, normally these workers would be taxed on the resulting income by the state in which they normally work. But their unexpected remote work has opened up the possibility of having that income taxed by their state of residence as well – which would create an unexpectedly complicated tax filing situation and possibly a higher tax bill for these workers.

My legislation would simply continue the status quo that existed at the start of the pandemic. So, for example, if you are generally taxed in the state of North Carolina because your job is there, but you live in South Carolina, your tax situation would not change simply because you worked from home during the pandemic.

My Mobile Workforce bill has received strong bipartisan support in previous Congresses, and the U.S. House of Representatives has even passed a version of my legislation several times. The only reason my bill has not advanced in the Senate is because of opposition from a handful of states who aggressively tax those temporarily working inside their borders. I hope that with the additional urgency created by the pandemic, we will be able to pass the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act this year, either alone or as part of a larger coronavirus relief package.

Americans have faced a very difficult few months as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress should intervene to ensure that new tax burdens are not among the pandemic’s effects. I intend to do everything I can in Congress to ensure that Americans who worked from home to help flatten the curve don’t face a complicated tax situation as a result – and that health care workers who risked their lives to work in COVID-stricken areas are not rewarded with massive tax bills from the states whose residents they helped save.

###

Senate to Focus on Families, Economy in Next COVID-19 Bill
By U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

When the Senate goes back into session the week of July 20, one of the proposals we’ll be working on is a “phase four” coronavirus relief package. The last coronavirus relief bill we passed back in March—the CARES Act—included funding for the Paycheck Protection Program which helped many businesses in South Dakota stay open during the pandemic. It also included direct funding for families and individuals which was intended to help keep our economy going. It’s never easy to vote for such a big piece of legislation—with a big price tag—but the coronavirus pandemic has been unlike anything we’ve faced before. It required us to take significant action to save lives and prevent the economy—which we greatly improved over the past few years—from crashing.

Any phase four bill is still being hashed out, so at this point in time we do not know for sure what it will include. In the discussions I’m having with other Republican senators, we’re talking about keeping the focus on job creation and the economy. 7.5 million jobs were re-added back into the economy over the past two months, which is good news, but we’re still short of the record-high employment numbers we experienced before the pandemic started. We have a lot of work left to do to get back to pre-pandemic unemployment levels. As more states begin reopening safely, we’ll see more jobs being created.

Reopening schools in the fall so our kids can get back in the classroom will likely also be a priority in a phase four relief bill. If it can be done safely, reopening schools will be a big help to moms and dads who have been working from home while at the same time trying to teach their kids.

We’re also talking about including liability protection for businesses, medical professionals, schools and universities to protect from lawsuits related to COVID-19. We don’t want to see thousands of new lawsuits against business owners, school districts and universities because someone contracted COVID-19. We also don’t want the doctors and nurses on the frontlines of this battle to be sued as they work overtime to help those who have been infected.

I can tell you what won’t be included in the Senate’s phase four bill: national Democrats’ proposals in the House-passed HEROES Act, such as requiring taxpayers to fund abortions, incentivizing illegal immigration, promotion of cannabis and federalizing our elections. The $3 trillion HEROES Act pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her members in the House was a socialist pipe dream. Because the bill was so large, she and her members were able to include many extremely liberal policies that are unpopular with the majority of Americans. The HEROES Act was not real relief for those struggling because of COVID-19.

Americans deserve a lot better than what the House is putting forward. We’re working in the Senate to come up with actual relief for American families and businesses who are struggling to deal with this virus. As we begin talking about phase four, I welcome the input of South Dakotans. My contact information is on my website, www.rounds.senate.gov. Email me, call me or stop in to visit.

###

Making Telehealth Permanent
By Rep. Dusty Johnson

In March, when things went from 0 to 100 at the beginning of the pandemic, our health care system was forced to adapt quickly on so many levels. With patients no longer allowed to visit hospitals in-person for regular appointments, we needed a solution – and fast.

Telehealth was the answer. The administration quickly expanded Medicare’s telehealth coverage during the pandemic, ensuring our seniors had access to their providers from the safety of their own home.

Prior to COVID-19, Senator Thune and I supported the CONNECT for Health Act, which would make the Medicare telehealth expansion permanent – I will continue to push for this bill as a long-term solution.

If you’ve utilized telehealth throughout the last several months – we probably shared a similar thought: “Why wasn’t this an option years ago?” The answer is two-fold – lack of awareness it existed and lack of coverage through programs like Medicare and other health insurance providers.

Telehealth is no longer a secret, and it’s likely more Americans are going to take advantage of it moving forward. That’s why I signed onto the KEEP Telehealth Options Act, which would require the Department of Health and Human Services to study the current state of telehealth and inform Congress about the areas that require improvement on the path to permanence.

It’s been a difficult few months, but I’m proud of our health care community for stepping up in more areas than one.

Because of the CARES Act, hospitals around the country were able to apply for funding through the Federal Communications Commission to increase state access to telehealth services. South Dakota hospitals were awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase telehealth equipment, ensuring our hospitals could meet the needs of patients virtually.

South Dakota is home to providers like Avera that have led the charge on telehealth services in rural communities for decades. We still have more work to do, but one thing is for certain, telehealth needs to be a permanent option for all Americans.

###

Our South Dakota Way of Life
By Governor Kristi Noem 

I came home to South Dakota after eight years serving in Congress because I love our state. I missed working with cows and horses. I missed our beautiful wide-open spaces.  But more than anything else, I missed spending time with my family and our South Dakota way of life.

Our people, with their tremendous work ethic and down-to-earth values, are second-to-none. South Dakotans appreciate freedom and the things that make our country special, and that’s something that I’ve been continuously reminded of over these past several months. When faced with difficult challenges and a once in a lifetime global pandemic, South Dakotans did not look to the government to dictate to them. Instead, they looked at all the information at their disposal and made the best decisions for themselves and their families.

These past couple weeks have given us tremendous opportunities to celebrate the things that make South Dakota such a great place to live. We showcased our state to the rest of the nation and the world when we celebrated America’s birthday with President Trump and fireworks at Mount Rushmore.

Last week, we got to showcase a different side of our state, and one that is especially dear to my heart: the cowboy side. Because South Dakota never closed, the Professional Bull Riders (PBR) decided to hold their Team Championship in Sioux Falls. To make things even better, it was the first national indoor sporting event to have fans in the stands since sports leagues closed their doors in March.

The bull riders put on quite a show, and they graciously gave me the honor of carrying Old Glory into the arena for the Star-Spangled Banner on the second night of their competition. It was a spectacular moment. South Dakotans exercised their freedom to participate in such an event, freedom that has been denied citizens of many other states. And they celebrated that freedom the way that Americans have for so long, by honoring our flag. That flag represents so much more than just our nation.  It embodies the brave men and women in uniform who have followed it into battle in conflicts around the world – conflicts that were fought to protect the freedoms and liberties that make America the greatest country ever.

It’s my hope that we will continue to celebrate the things that make South Dakota special; that we will protect our South Dakota way of life so that we can pass it on to those who come after us; and that we will share our way of life with as many people as we can.

###

If you hadn’t heard yet, Lee Brown, who worked in South Dakota politics and campaigns on and off for many years passed away yesterday from cancer:

Leland (Lee) Brown, 63, Sioux Falls, SD, died on July 18, 2020 from cancer. He was born October 15, 1956, to Wallace and Betty (Phelps) Brown of Oldham, SD. He grew up on the family farm and attended the Drakola Congregational country church and the Drakola Common (one room) country school until they both closed in the late 60s and then he attended Oldham Public where he graduated from high school. He was also a graduate of the University of South Dakota with a Bachelors Degree in Political Science.

His career working in the government relations and political consulting fields began in South Dakota for many years before moving to Denver, Colorado, to live and work near the Rocky Mountains he so enjoyed.

You can read Lee’s entire obituary here.

It was just within the past few weeks that Lee had announced that he was ceasing treatment, and said his goodbyes to friends via Facebook. Lee was known by many in South Dakota politics, and universally well-liked.

Lee was a tremendously nice man, and an example for us all. Godspeed.

Randy Seiler must be getting tired of Governor Kristi Noem winning.

Nationally recognized and lauded among our Nation’s Governors for her message to “Trust your citizens” and  “don’t ‘lay down mandates.”

We have some of the lowest rates of covid in the nation and in the face of a national economic crisis, a $19.1 million dollar surplus, with most of the saved money came from executive branch agencies.

Not to mention Governor Kristi Noem’s strong approval among the state’s residents.  Which came before Governor Noem brought fireworks back to Mt. Rushmore and put South Dakota on the national stage with a visit from President Donald Trump.

How can the state’s Democrats respond in the face of Governor Noem leading? Sadly, as Randy Seiler, the man who has signed a loan to keep the Democrat Party afloat, offers the state dems are “re building” as he complains about the Governor:

The Democratic Party in South Dakota has not held a statewide office in decades, and currently, opposes a super majority in both houses of the state legislature.

and..

“Medical professionals, and scientists and the CDC are giving guidance and advising us what we have to do to combat the coronavirus not only in South Dakota, but across the country… our Governor’s approach to that is personal responsibility, my perspective is that is a lack of leadership.” Seiler said.

Read it all here.

Dems complain about Governor Noem believing in South Dakotans “personal responsibility,” and call it “a lack of leadership?”  Are they actually vetting this before they speak to the press?

When Dems attack the Governor believing in the residents of the state, they’ve already lost.