Category: Congresswoman Kristi Noem

Noem Introduces Legislation to Prevent FWS from
Listing Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today introduced legislation to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from listing the long-eared bat as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.  Senator Thune introduced the language in the Senate earlier this year.

“It’s widely understood that the long-eared bat’s depopulation is not due to habitat changes, but white-nose syndrome,” said Rep. Noem.  “Focusing on habitat, as the Fish and Wildlife Service proposal and corresponding guidance does, pulls critical and limited resources from the real threats facing the long-eared bat, while also endangering more than 1,500 jobs in the Black Hills area.  Any effort to preserve the species must focus on the disease, not on fulfilling an unproven environmental agenda that could jeopardize South Dakota jobs and turn parts of the Black Hills into a tinder box.”

Listing the long-eared bat as endangered and pursuing regulatory restrictions on forest management could effectively end active management in the Black Hills National Forest, which will cause declining forest health, increase the likelihood of large-scale wildfires, and severely impact the timber industry in the Black Hills. On October 14, 2014, Rep. Noem and Sen. Thune sent a letter to the FWS encouraging the agency to withdraw its proposed listing of the northern long-eared bat as endangered and to refocus its attention on combating white-nose syndrome.

###

Serving Up Some Commonsense
By Rep. Kristi Noem
March 20, 2015

Between the 2010-11 and 2012-13 school years, 1.2 million kids dropped out of the federal school lunch program.  It was the first decline we’d seen in over a decade.  According to the Government Accountability Office – a nonpartisan agency that serves as a watchdog over taxpayer-funded programs – the decline was largely due to challenges with the “palatability” of the food being served and the implementation costs of new federal mandates.  Despite falling participation, the federal government wants to go even further.

As is true for any parent, I want nothing more than my kids to be healthy and happy.  I make sure the meals they get at home are nutritious and I expect the same when they go through the lunch line at school.  But what the federal government has done to school lunches doesn’t work.  It pushes every child into a one-size-fits-all mold, tying the hands of those who are closest to our kids and empowering bureaucrats in Washington to dictate what goes on the tray.

These bureaucrats clearly aren’t cooks.  Schools are struggling to get a pasta that holds together under the new whole-grain requirements.  Tortillas and many breads are out of the question too.  The ultra-low sodium levels, which are to be implemented soon, could push items like milk and cheese off the plate, because these foods have naturally occurring sodium.

The federal government has kicked commonsense out the window with these requirements because they think people in D.C. know better than a parent, local nutritionist, or school administrator.   That’s a problem.

What’s worse is that schools are breaking the bank trying to pay for the new requirements.  I’ve heard from many schools that are being forced to pull dollars from the general fund in order to cover school meal costs.  For many districts, that’s money that could have gone toward the school’s instructional programs.  That should not happen.

We need to give our local schools more flexibility on these requirements.  Earlier this month, I introduced the Reducing Federal Mandates on School Lunch Act.  This bill takes aim at the overly restrictive whole grain and sodium requirements while also giving administrators more flexibility on the rules that have increased their costs.

I believe everyone in this debate has the same goal: To serve our kids healthy meals at school.  But if schools have to divert scarce education dollars to comply with federal mandates that insist upon serving foods kids won’t eat anyways, we have to reassess the program.  That’s the point we’re at now.

We need to give control back to the people who are closest to the students, because our kids deserve better than a lunch designed by bureaucrats.

###

Noem Introduces Legislation Offering More Flexibility for Local School Meal Programs

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today introduced legislation that aims to reduce federal mandates on school meal standards, including the more stringent whole grain requirements that went into effect in July 2014 and the Target 2 sodium requirements set to be implemented in the coming years.

“As a parent, I want nothing more than for my kids to grow up happy and healthy,” said Rep. Noem.  “Unfortunately, current school meal requirements push all kids – and all schools – into a one-size-fits-all model.  The declining number of kids in the school lunch program shows that it’s not working.  Our kids deserve better.  They deserve a school meal program that is rooted in science-based nutrition plans – a program that includes food that they’re actually going to eat.  My bill gives schools the flexibility to accomplish that.”

Rep. Noem introduced her initial Reducing Federal Mandates on School Lunch Act in December 2013.  The latest version of the bill includes new provisions to address concerns with the Target 2 sodium levels and whole grain requirements.

“Everyone in this debate shares a common goal.  We want our kids to be served healthy and nutritious foods through the school lunch program,” said Neil Putnam, a member of the Mitchell School Board and the Western Region Director for the National School Board Association.  “The  issue comes when federal mandates sometimes divert scarce financial resources from a school’s instructional program.  I am grateful to Rep. Noem for introducing legislation that maintains the goal of healthy meals, but does it in a way that gives school districts, like Mitchell, the flexibility and affordability to make decisions on the local level that are best for our students’ overall success.”

The Reducing Federal Mandates on School Lunch Act, which has been endorsed by the National School Board Association and the School Superintendents Association, would:

• Allow schools to maintain the previous whole grain requirements.  Without this change, 100 percent of the grains that schools would be required to serve students would be whole-grain rich, pushing items like tortillas and pasta largely off the menu.  Rep. Noem’s bill would restore the requirement back to 50 percent, meaning at least half of the grains served would be required to be whole-grain rich.
• Maintain Target 1 sodium requirements.  Absent a change, schools would have a difficult time serving healthy foods that include milk, cheese, meat and other foods with naturally occurring sodium.
• Give administrators flexibility on some of the rules that have increased costs for school districts, including the school breakfast program, a la carte options, and school lunch price increases.
• Make the USDA’s easing of the meat and grain requirements permanent through law, rather than regulations.  This would give certainty to schools that they’ll be allowed more flexibility in serving meats and grains while still staying within calorie maximums.

###

Noem Applauds Decision to Continue Processing H-2B Applications

Washington, D.C. – Representative Kristi Noem today applauded the Department of Labor’s decision to continue processing H-2B visa applications, after a temporary hold was placed on processing earlier this month.  These visas are used frequently in South Dakota’s tourism, construction, landscaping, and agronomy industries.

“Many South Dakota small businesses and road construction crews rely heavily on H-2B visa holders,” said Noem.  “Without the ability to hire seasonal workers as we approach the tourism- and construction-filled summer, many local businesses will suffer. I’m glad to see the Department of Labor’s decision to continue processing these critical applications, but we need to find a permanent solution. I will continue to keep in regular contact with the Department, as they prepare to issue their final rule on April 30.”

Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced it planned to no longer accept or process requests for H-2B visas, which are used by temporary non-agriculture workers.  On March 16, after communications from Rep. Noem about the hardships resulting from their previous decision, the DOL filed a motion to once again continue processing H-2B applications.  As such, H-2B visas will continue to be processed with little or no disruption for businesses.  In the long term, DOL and DHS are expected to issue a joint Interim Final Rule by April 30, 2015.

Nearly 750 H-2B workers are expected to work in South Dakota throughout the summer.

###

More Trade Can Bring Opportunity and Peace
By Rep. Kristi Noem
March 13, 2015

When a bill is signed, lawmakers aren’t signing a paycheck.  Instead, we are creating an environment where if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead.  Those principles are important to remember – especially as we work toward finalizing trade agreements in the next few years.

We’re closest to finishing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a trade agreement with allies in the Asia-Pacific.  If completed, we will unlock opportunities for South Dakota job creators, ag producers, and consumers while building a healthy economy.

Today, 75 percent of South Dakota exporters are small and medium-sized businesses.  Trade agreements reduce barriers so businesses can get their products and services to more consumers.  Such agreements also give small businesses tools they don’t currently have access to in order to fight against foreign entities that may be stealing their information or technology.

For farmers and ranchers, trade agreements open new markets.  We grow more than we can sell here at home.  There’s no reason not to take advantage of that abundance – especially as nearly 96 percent of consumers are outside the U.S.

It’s not just about benefits to business, however.  The high U.S. tariffs on shoes and clothing are one of our most regressive taxes, costing Americans billions of dollars every year. With a trade agreement, we can lower that tax on consumers.

The national security benefits of open trade cannot be underestimated either – especially in an increasingly powerful region, like the Asia-Pacific.  In the first 10 years of this century, East Asian countries negotiated 48 trade agreements while the United States negotiated just two in the region.  China has been filling the vacuum, using its ever-increasing commercial ties to assert its growing power. That creates a dangerous environment for the U.S. and for South Dakota.

The best course forward for TPP would be for Congress to pass a bill establishing Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA.

Having TPA in place will help us get the strongest deal for South Dakota, because through it, we’re showing our trading partners that we’re serious, incentivizing them to put their best offers forward.

If TPA is established – and it has been for every president since FDR – Congress is telling the administration:  If a trade agreement is to get the privilege of an up-or-down vote in Congress, you must follow our rules and instructions, keep us in the loop, and remember that we have the last say.  What it does not do is give any authority to the President.  Congress sets the priorities and negotiating parameters – not the White House.  If this administration violates those parameters, Congress can revoke TPA.  Moreover, if he follows the parameters and we still don’t like the agreement, Congress has the power to vote it down.

Congress is expected to consider TPA in the coming weeks.  In the House, it will first see action in the Ways and Means Committee, of which I am a member.

With TPA, we can then move thoughtfully to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements.  I’ll be fighting for agreements that are rooted in fair and conservative economic principles, protect South Dakota interests, and bolster national security, because as President Ronald Reagan said, “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”

###

Cherishing Freedom and Offering Hope
By Rep. Kristi Noem
March 6, 2015

“America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope” – a resonant statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he spoke to a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 about the consequences for his country – and ours – if a bad nuclear deal with Iran is finalized.  As I watched him speak from the House floor, I couldn’t help but think this was a speech the American people needed to hear – a speech we deserved to hear.

Nuclear talks with Iran have been ongoing for much of President Obama’s tenure.  They’ve been extended twice and under the current timeline, negotiators must agree on an outline of an accord by late-March with a detailed agreement due by the end of June.  Today, there are deep-seated and bipartisan concerns about the deal our administration is making with Iran.  Most notably, that it could fundamentally fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

I believe the administration vastly underestimates Iran and their intentions.  They assume that the Iranian regime will respond to diplomacy, but that assumption was and is wrong.  As the Prime Minister asserted in his speech: if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, they ought to act like a normal country.

Iran has sent satellites into space, conducted numerous missile tests, and diversified their nuclear program, moving forward on the construction of a heavy water reactor and installing a new generation of faster centrifuges.  This could enable the country to very quickly produce bomb-grade materials in the near future.

Without question, the threats posed by Iran are immediate.  We cannot miscalculate their seriousness.

During his speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted that Israel may not get the agreement it wants in these talks, but Israel needs an agreement that it could live with – literally.  I believe America needs an agreement that would allow Israel to survive too.

The national security interests of Israel do not stop at Israel’s border, as those who seek to destroy Israel wish the same fate upon America.  Israel shares our common values of liberty and democracy.  They remain a key partner as we’ve worked to defeat the terrorism of ISIL, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and affiliate groups.  We have collaborated on improving stability in the region, behavioral screening techniques for airport security, and counterterrorism efforts that bring security benefits to both countries.  For these and many other reasons, Israel is our strongest ally in a region that greatly impacts American national security.  Their survival is critical.

Time and again, President Obama and his administration has reiterated that no deal with Iran is better than a bad deal, but Prime Minister Netanyahu pushed back in his address, saying:  “This is a bad deal.  It is a very bad deal…. We are being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That is just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.”  I agree completely and would urge the President to negotiate a better deal – a deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and the consequences it would have on America and our allies.

We live in a dangerous world, but Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. America cannot turn our back on our ally in times of peace – and certainly, not in times of heightened threats.

The Prime Minister closed his remarks with this: “Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.  And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today.  ‘Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.’   My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute.  May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.”

###

Resiliency, Strength, Sacrifice
By Rep. Kristi Noem
February 27, 2015

When a service member joins the military, their spouse and family serves beside them. And just as our military stand ready to respond to crisis here and abroad, their families must be prepared for their loved ones to be sent into harm’s way.

Last week, the Sioux Falls-based 1742nd Transportation Company of the Army National Guard received the 2014 Department of Defense Reserve Family Readiness Award. The Pentagon honors just one Army National Guard Company with this award each year. South Dakota has taken top honors each of the last three years. In 2013, the 235th Military Police Company in Rapid City was recognized, and in 2012, the 842nd Engineer Company in Spearfish was honored. Each of these awards is an incredible tribute that speaks to the integrity and value-system of the South Dakota National Guard and their leadership.
Demands over the last decade have demonstrated the critical role families play in mission success. More so than in previous military engagements, the War on Terror has required our men and women in uniform to be deployed multiple times, meaning far too many American troops have missed not only one Christmas, birthday or anniversary, but two, three or more. Family readiness for deployment, then, is essential. As one Naval Commander put it, deployment is “so much easier when you know that your spouse and your kids are all taken care of.”

For any of us, if there are financial or family problems at home, it can be next to impossible to concentrate on the work that must be done at the office. For men and women in uniform, that distraction could be a matter of life and death. As an Air Force Major wrote, “Without the support of the military family, I find it would be nearly impossible to be in a right state of mind to allow an individual to focus on mission accomplishment when the call comes.”

The most successful family readiness programs don’t start when the family finds out a loved one is going to be deployed. The most successful programs begin long before that and continue throughout the deployment and long after the service member returns home. That is something the 1742nd Transportation Company was recognized for last week.

I had the opportunity to help welcome the 1742nd Transportation Company home from their last tour in the Middle East. Seeing husbands, wives and children rush to their loved ones in uniform sent chills down my spine and tears to my eyes. The families in the auditorium that afternoon are resilient, strong, and courageous. I deeply respect each of them and admire their sense of duty. Each family there has made tremendous sacrifices so our guardsmen and women can defeat evil and protect the freedoms you and I exercise every day.

I will be forever grateful to our service members and their families for the sacrifices they’ve made.

###

With the IRS, It’s Guilty until Proven Innocent
By Rep. Kristi Noem
February 20, 2015

Innocent until proven guilty: It’s the basis for legal proceedings in the U.S. – except when the IRS is involved.  Under their rules, the IRS sentences first; asks questions later.  It’s an unacceptable practice and something I’m committed to holding them accountable for as a member of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee.

During an Oversight Subcommittee hearing earlier this month, I heard testimony from a small-business-owning veteran.  Andrew Clyde started “Clyde Armory” – a gun and ammunition retailer in Athens, Georgia – in 1991.  Over the next 17 years, he grew the business from a “home business” to a storefront shop, sustaining it even through three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

On April 12, 2013, he got a visit that he’ll never forget. Two federal agents stopped by his store, questioned him about his business, and notified him that nearly one million dollars had already been taken from his company’s bank account at the local credit union.

He testified: “I was never so afraid in my life, not even in combat, so much so that I trembled when they left…. I was just depositing my own hard earned and legally earned cash in the bank. How can that be a felony? I pay my taxes, I try to do everything correct.”

No one ever claimed the money was earned through illegal activities.  Instead, the IRS argued Mr. Clyde had deposited the money illegally.  They cited a law, which was intended to stop terrorists and drug dealers, that requires banks to report any cash transaction over $10,000 and makes it illegal for account holders to split up the deposit in order to avoid having the bank file a report.

Mr. Clyde admitted that he had a number of deposits for just under $10,000, but not because he was trying to skirt the law.  Rather, he had a standard insurance policy that would only insure deposits up to $10,000.

Within a matter of days, his annual taxes were due and the next employee payroll had to be made.  By the time those bills were paid, he had no more working capital left.  He said he immediately had to cancel every product order he could and take out an $80,000 loan to cover regular business expenses.

It took more than three months for his case to get in front of a judge.  And when he finally did, the federal government offered to settle – so long as they could keep a half-million dollars of his cash. He didn’t accept their offer.  They came back later and offered to settle for just $109,000.  Again, he didn’t accept because to his knowledge he did nothing wrong.

In the end, he agreed to forfeit $50,000 to settle the case.  This was after he’d already spent nearly $150,000 on his legal defense.

What the IRS did here was absurd.  At the hearing, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen offered an apology to any business owner who was wrongly impacted.  And while that’s more than they’ve received in the past, it hardly makes up for the business they lost.

It’s hard to know where to start with this IRS.  The agency’s targeting of conservative groups has made many question the agency’s political independence and whether one’s use of free speech could be held against them.  Its lavish taxpayer-funded conferences have raised even more questions.

Hard working taxpayers deserve answers.  What the IRS is doing – how they are conducting themselves – is ridiculous.  It is completely unacceptable.  They must be held accountable and I’m committed to doing that.

###