Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Urges Colleagues to Reject Iran Nuclear Deal

“I urge my fellow Senators to vote against President Obama’s deal with Iran. It’s wrong for the United States and for the world.”

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), today delivered a speech on the Senate floor encouraging his colleagues to join him in opposing the President’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Video of Rounds’ Floor Speech:

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Much has been said about this agreement over the past weeks and months.

My colleagues have addressed a great number of concerns and deficiencies about the deal and many outside experts have testified before multiple committees of Congress explaining their views as well.

In addressing these concerns, I wish to ask a few simple questions:  Do we believe that with this agreement, the U.S. and our allies are safer today than we were a year ago and will we be safer when the nuclear limitations expire in ten years?

The answers to these questions are very important.

They will dictate what we decide in one of the most important votes we cast in the 114th Congress.

After closely examining this agreement, the following can be concluded:

Upon verification by the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) of Iranian compliance, supposedly within a few months if Iran is in compliance, they will, after payment of their obligations, receive around $56 billion dollars that was frozen in overseas accounts.

Further revenue will be generated because the European Union has agreed to lift its ban on the import of Iranian oil thereby providing Iran with billions more in revenue with which to repair its oil fields and begin to repair its battered economy.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran’s deputy petroleum minister recently stated that his country’s oil exports would reach 2.3 million barrels a day, compared with around 1.2 million barrels today.

Iran would also gain access to 50 million barrels of its oil held offshore, and economists estimate that Iran’s economy will grow up to nine percent in the year after implantation of the agreement.

This verification by the IAEA will be accomplished through protocols that members of the Senate have not seen in writing and that the Administration has not nor will they agree to provide to us.

This is in direct contravention to the Iran Review Act which the President signed into law agreeing to provide ALL documents and side agreements, and according to reports, will unbelievably, allow the Iranians to provide their own inspections of their military work on nuclear sites to the IAEA.

A robust inspection regime requires an anytime, anywhere policy.

Unfortunately, under the idea of “managed access” as found in the agreement, if the I-A-E-A requests access to an undeclared location under the JCPOA, Iran can delay access to the facility for two weeks or longer with the outlined multi-step process for undeclared locations.

U.S. sanctions against foreign firms for dealing with Iran in the oil and financial sectors, which have been the most effective sanctions enacted against Iran, will be suspended upon implementation of the agreement.

Sanctions prohibiting U.S. firms from conducting business with Iran will remain in place, but with a large carve out for non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by U.S. companies.

Some sanctions will also be lifted against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, the entity that runs the military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program.

Furthermore, the agreement requires the U.S. to make certain that U.S. state and local governments comply with sanctions relief contravening their own sanctions placed on Iran.

The JCPOA also commits the P5 + 1 to work to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage – which we can presume would mean from even our allies who feel deeply threatened by this agreement which transforms Iran, a terrorist state, to a breakout nuclear power and a terrorist state.

In year five of this agreement, Iran will be removed from the United Nations arms embargo.

Yet, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee in August, QUOTE “under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” UNQUOTE

In year eight of this agreement, Iran will be removed from the United Nations ballistic missile embargo.

In July, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter confirmed to me in a hearing that under this deal, he could not rule out Iran acquiring an intercontinental ballistic missile within ten years that could hit the United States.

This means that Iran would have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. soil in a decade.

These comments come after General Paul Selva, now the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told me during a separate hearing that Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and resources gained in sanctions relief under the nuclear deal could be used by Iran to continue sponsoring terrorism.

Under the agreement, the United States agreed to allow the nuclear related equipment to remain in Iran under lock and key, and Iran will be allowed to continue researching IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges.

Iran will also be allowed to begin testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges in cascades of 30 at year eight of the agreement.  After eight years many R&D restrictions are removed and Iran will begin to manufacture advanced centrifuges. All R&D restrictions end at 10 years.

Finally, after 10 years, Iran will be free of the restrictions on enrichment and could become a nuclear threshold state – legally under international law, only postponing the inevitable nuclearization of Iran.

So, Mr. President, with these facts established, I am left with what appears to me to be the undeniable answer to my questions:

The U.S. and our Middle Eastern allies are absolutely not safer today than we were a year ago and we will all be left unquestionably less safe when this agreement ends in ten years.

I therefore oppose this deal. It is an agreement that will reward a violent, terrorist regime. Instead of stopping the Iranians from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, it merely delays it.  This deal is shortsighted and dangerous for our security.

Just a few days ago I was talking with my eight year old grandson back in South Dakota.  He asked me what I was working on in the Senate and I told him about the President’s proposed deal with Iran.

I told him what we were giving them.  I told him about the money, the lifting of the sanctions, the access to weapons and soon, the ability to make a very bad bomb.

After all this he looked at me and asked, “what do we get out of it?”  Mr. President, if this third grader can see how bad this deal is so should we.

In conclusion, I urge my fellow Senators to vote against President Obama’s deal with Iran.

It’s wrong for the United States and for the world.  And as my grandson understood, we are getting a bad deal – one that we should reject.

# # #

The president of the Sisseton Whapeton Tribe who was ousted for drug testing of tribal employees has gone to a familiar face to represent him in fighting the matter:

Sources close to the situation state that the Council moved to nullify the drug tests results and actually re-instated people who tested positive for drugs, including users of THC. This reportedly worries Chairman Renville as a possible violation of several federal regulations as well as an abuse of power in that the motion could result in proof of aiding and abetting criminal behavior as well as obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence. Former US Attorney for the State of South Dakota Brendan Johnson has now been retained by Chairman Renville to protect the interests of this process.

…opponents of Renville claim it’s based on violations of civil rights, that it was not in accord with policy and that employees with prescriptions had been targeted in the test. A decision to drug-test employees has been lacking for several years according to sources and it is unclear if the entire SWO Council took the drug test.

Read it all here.

On the Argus Leaders’ 100 eyes today, they dropped a hint that one of the more innocuous ballot measures is actually far more sinister than it would let on:

Initiated Measure to Allow the Charging of Fees by Pat Powers

Apparently, as related on the show, this measure is allegedly an attempt on the part of unions to bust right to work laws by allowing them to force fees – and potentially involuntary Union membership on non-union members by claiming they’re representing all workers… allowing them to charge fees, i.e. Union Dues, of everyone they represent.

What do you think? Is this valid application of this proposed change to the constitution?

And now that the cat is out of the bag, should ballot measures circulating be forced to provide more information than they apparently are letting on at the onset of circulation?

I just had this forwarded by one of our state legislators:

What do you think about the invite? And if you were an elected official, would you go on a tour of a facility built on a site specifically designed to circumvent South Dakota State Law?

The President’s Nuclear Concession Deal
By Senator Mike Rounds
Sept. 11, 2015

This month, as we pause to recognize the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 and 2012 Benghazi terror attacks and remember those we lost, we are reminded of the freedoms and values we hold dear as Americans. We are also reminded just how different our country is now than it was on September 10, 2001. The threats we face today pose the most complex and uncertain international environment for the U.S. since the end of World War II. The foreign policy decisions we make today will undoubtedly have repercussions for generations to come. That is why it is unfathomable to me that any Senator would refuse his or her colleagues an up-or-down vote on the president’s nuclear concession deal with Iran – one of the most consequential issues of our time.

The Iran deal is widely unpopular – a recent poll shows only one in five Americans support it. It is also opposed by a bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress and more than 200 retired generals and admirals announced their opposition to the deal. And it’s not hard to see why. Even my third-grade grandson understood this when he curiously asked me about it over Labor Day weekend.  After telling him all that the president gave to Iran in the deal, he asked, “what do we get?”

Iran continues to be the leading state sponsor of terror – the president’s own State Department admits as much. It also continues to promulgate hatred for the U.S. and our allies. Earlier this month, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called America the “Great Satan” and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans from Beirut to Iraq and is currently holding four Americans hostage – the fate of whom weren’t even considered as part of the negotiated deal. Its leaders also continually vow to obliterate Israel, our longtime friend and ally.

Contrary to what you may hear from the deal’s supporters, this deal does not end Iran’s nuclear program and because it allows them to continue research on nuclear weaponry, essentially conceding that it will get a nuclear bomb after a 10 year period. It fails to require “anytime, anywhere” inspections and will allow Iran to access tens of billions of dollars that can be used to fuel more destruction and instability around the world. Iran will also have access to nearly one million more barrels of oil that they can now legally sell and profit from. We are giving Iran a windfall of capital that they can use to increase terrorism, grow their military and strengthen their economy. According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran has been preparing for the economic boost this deal will provide them and increased their defense budget by 32.5 percent last year.

Previously, President Obama told the American people that no deal with Iran would be better than a bad deal. I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, he has doubled down on this bad deal by stiff-arming Democrats in the Senate to filibuster it so that we cannot even vote on the deal.

America faces very real threats that deserve serious, meaningful debate in Congress. Unfortunately, Democrat leadership and President Obama are playing politics with the Iran deal, essentially robbing the American people of a voice in one of the most consequential issues of our time. If the U.S. is going to give the Iranian regime access to nuclear warheads and nuclear research, new markets for their oil and tens of billions of dollars in cash which officials have admitted could be used to advance terrorism, the American people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on the issue.

###

Back to School Lunch Reform
By Rep. Kristi Noem
September 11, 2015

It’s back to school, and for most South Dakota students, that means back to school lunches.  Once again this year, schools are facing even more stringent restrictions when it comes to what they can put on our kids’ plates.  As a mom, I think it’s gone too far.

I want to do everything I can to make sure my kids are eating healthy and learning healthy habits.  It’s one of the most important things we can do for our children.  But I also know that if the food doesn’t taste good and half of it is pushed off the tray at the end of the meal, it’s not doing them any favors. Unfortunately, that’s what is happening under current regulations.  As a result, kids are leaving the table hungry or opting to bring their own lunch and dropping out of the school meal program completely.

In fact, between the 2010-11 and 2012-13 school years 1.2 million kids dropped out of the federal school lunch program.  That was the first decline we’d seen in over a decade.  Unfortunately, when participation declines like this, food and labor costs increase, meaning some school districts have had to pull from their general fund to make ends meet.

The downward trend began after Michelle Obama’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was implemented and a slew of new regulations came into effect.  These new regulations tied the hands of local schools and parents, so we’ve been working since to bring some relief.

This year, Congress has begun the process of reauthorizing the school meal program, giving an opportunity to make some meaningful changes.  Some of what we’re looking to do is captured in legislation I wrote.

More specifically, under Michelle Obama’s law, schools are strictly limited in the amount of sodium they can serve – so much so that once the law is fully implemented, foods with naturally occurring sodium, like milk, cheese and some meats, could push schools outside the USDA-approved zone and jeopardize some of the federal funding they receive for school lunches.  I would like to scale back those restrictions, as well as those that require foods to be 100% whole-grain rich.  Those changes give schools more choices.

My legislation also makes the USDA’s easing of meat and grain requirements permanent.  As written, the law limits schools to serving only small amounts of meat.  In fact, three chicken nuggets could put a school over the allowed meat limits.  While the USDA has lessened those restrictions through regulations because of pressure from Congress, I’d like to back that change with the certainty of law.

Finally, we should give schools some additional flexibility if the costs to comply with certain federal regulations get too high, which my legislation does as well.

These changes need to be made – and they can be made while still ensuring students are served nutritious meals.

Our son, Booker, is an active kid.  I want to make sure federal regulations aren’t stopping him or any of our young people from getting the food they need to be successful in school and in their after-school activities.

###

Continuing The Workforce Marathon
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

Supplying our employers with needed workforce continues to be a major challenge for our state. Our low unemployment rate is a sign of economic strength, but it also means it’s difficult for employers to add more jobs even if they have the business to justify it.

Still, whenever we face a challenge, South Dakotans roll up their sleeves and work together to find a solution.

One year ago, I challenged all sectors – business, education and government – to work together to address workforce challenges. Using feedback and information gained from six regional workforce summits, we identified the key components of an effective workforce system.

First, we need to prepare our youth to reach their true potential by providing the tools, information and opportunities to guide them in their career decisions.

At the high school level, our Dual Credit Program has provided opportunities for juniors and seniors to enroll directly into college courses. This helps prepare them for their careers, and also provides credits toward both a high school diploma and a post-secondary degree. During the 2014-15 school year, nearly 2,000 students registered for 3,810 courses totaling 11,196 credit hours. Three out of every four earned A’s and B’s.

Second, employers need mechanisms to help them recruit and retain quality workers. Certainly, training is needed to help citizens fill the skilled jobs in our state. At the same time, though, we should recruit workers from outside our state, welcoming new South Dakotans and encouraging the return of those who have left our state.

Toward encouraging local communities to meet their own unique workforce needs, the Community Incentives Matching Program provided 1:1 grant dollars to help implement locally developed strategies.Fourteen grantees received a combined total of $1 million towards their sustainable local initiatives. Workforce strategies ranged from housing to internships and certification and training programs to English as a Second Language classes.

Lastly, the foundation of an effective workforce system must be built around data and a common language. The Department of Labor and Regulation is overhauling its entire SDWORKS job service system. When the overhaul is complete, to make decisions we will have real-time, skill-based supply and demand information, not just historical information. Additionally, the jobs database will use language describing jobs and job seekers in terms of actual skills and experiences, competencies, and preferences, not just job titles. This will allow job seekers, employers and education institutions to make better job matches by using common terminology.

Looking at our progress, many other programs included in our South Dakota Workforce Initiatives are also doing exceptionally well. Collaborative efforts to fill our workforce gaps have grown and been successful. The South Dakota Workforce Initiatives annual report is a testament to the progress we’ve made. Read it at SouthDakotaWins.com.

The challenge of supplying our employers with needed workforce cannot be overcome easily. This is a marathon, not a sprint, but we’re making progress.

-30-

In the last election – two years ago on May 8, 2013, Rick Weiland announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for the South Dakota’s U.S. Senate seat.

We’re now 4 months past that in this cycle, and Dems are showing no signs that they’ve got anyone yet.   What do you think their excuse is going to be when they let it go unchallenged again?