Washington DC News - South Dakota War College

Video Release: Rounds Presses EPA on Economic Impact of Regulatory Proposals

March 4, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Presses EPA on Economic Impact of Regulatory Proposals

WASHINGTON —U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPA) Committee, today had the opportunity to question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy about the agency’s process for determining the economic impact when proposing major new rules. In addition, he asked her to clarify EPA’s contradictory statements about the public comments received on the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule. Misleading statements could confuse the public into thinking the proposed rule, which received overwhelmingly negative feedback, was more favorable than EPA portrayed.

“Much of what is coming out of the EPA would impose costly new mandates with little consideration given to the far-reaching effects these rules would have on the average American,” said Rounds. “It’s imperative we hold the agency accountable for its onerous, job-killing agenda by making sure they are using the most current, accurate information available and not skewing the facts in their favor.”

The EPA is required under Executive Order to consider economic affects whenever writing a “major rule.” A 2014 government report found the EPA was using data from 1979-1991 when studying the economic impact of recently finalized major rules. As a result, the regulations the EPA was crafting for the U.S. were finalized with the assumptions that the U.S. economy 20 to 30 years ago was the same as it is today, and involves only four industrial sectors, which is not accurate and does not take into account the transformation the U.S. economy has undergone in the past several decades.

Press Release: Rounds Statement on NLRB’s “Ambush Election” Rule

March 4, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Statement on NLRB’s “Ambush Election” Rule

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today supported a Joint Resolution of Disapproval, which he cosponsored, against the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) recent rule on “ambush elections,” The rule is scheduled to take effect on April 14, 2015.

“With this rule, the NLRB isn’t looking out for workers or employers—it’s looking to protect big unions,” said Rounds. “By dramatically cutting the time between a union petition to a representation election, it not only limits the rights of employers, it pushes employees to make a hurried decision about organizing. Three unelected bureaucrats never should have made this decision in the first place.”

In December 2014, the NLRB issued a final rule making drastic changes to union representation election procedures, known as “ambush elections.” The rule makes an end run around employers by cutting the time between a union petition and a representation election from approximately 38 days to as few as 11. Additionally, it would require employers to give unions personal information about employees, including personal cell phone numbers and personal email addresses.

###

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Don’t Break the Net

March 1, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Don’t Break the Net
By Senator John Thune

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_Congress Whether it is to catch the scores of last night’s game, read the morning news, or stay connected with friends and family, like many South Dakotans, I depend on fast, reliable Internet service. The role of the Internet in our lives is only going to continue to grow. It will keep revolutionizing things like transportation, commerce, agriculture, and education. But heavy-handed government regulation could delay the next big transformation.

On February 26, three unelected officials of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to approve the most controversial agenda item in the agency’s modern history, a policy awkwardly known as Title II reclassification of broadband. The FCC voted 3-2 to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet that were designed and intended for monopoly phone companies in the 1930s. The regulations being imposed by the FCC are an attempted power-grab that will create new barriers for innovation and open the door to new taxes and fees on internet service for American households.

In the 317 page rule that has yet to be made public, the FCC gives itself broad power to decide how broadband services may be offered in the market. For example, mobile broadband plans that allow unlimited music streaming could be prohibited by the government. Additionally, the FCC action could make broadband more expensive because compliance with these regulations will increase operational costs for providers that will likely be passed along to customers in the form higher prices for broadband Internet service.

New investment in communications networks will also be threatened. Broadband networks are expensive to build, operate, and maintain, and nowhere is that more apparent than in South Dakota, with our relatively small population and large landmass.

Advocates for reclassification worry that future entities that control Internet access could abuse that position to affect what content users can access. I have generally not been in favor of instituting government regulations until we know there is a real and actual need. But, to prevent the FCC’s heavy-handed regulatory overreach, I believe it is time for Congress to act by updating our telecommunication laws.

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC and policies relating to telecommunications and the Internet, I put forward a legislative solution earlier this year to create common-sense rules for the digital road. What I am proposing is very different from what the FCC has jammed through. The FCC regulations are 317 pages. My draft proposal is six pages that focuses on what consumers want – prohibiting practices like “blocking,” which is the process blocking legal content, and “paid prioritization,” which is demanding special payments for access to certain services, all without the legal uncertainty associated with the FCC’s plan.

Above all, I don’t want the debate about protecting the open Internet to be used as an excuse for the federal government to grab control of the Internet from innovators. I will continue to pursue a legislative solution with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the problems associated with the FCC overreach, and I will fight for policies that maintain the light-touch regulatory structure that has enabled the Internet to thrive.

###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Resiliency, Strength, Sacrifice

March 1, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

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.

###

Thune Pressures Vilsack for Answers on Undetermined Wetlands Backlog and CRP Mid-Contract Management

February 24, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Thune Pressures Vilsack for Answers on Undetermined Wetlands Backlog and CRP Mid-Contract Management

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today questioned U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack at a 2014 Farm Bill implementation hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee about Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Mid-Contract Management policies and a backlog of undetermined wetlands in eastern and northeastern South Dakota.

Video of Thune’s remarks and questions can be viewed here.

CRP mid-contract management guidelines:

CRP land must be managed to control weeds and undergrowth by removing the vegetative cover once or twice during the lifetime of the contract. USDA has been requiring many South Dakota CRP participants to burn the vegetative cover or harvest it and destroy the hay.

“South Dakota producers received letters last year telling them that the residue they removed must be destroyed,” said Thune. “Over the years, this has resulted in literally of thousands of tons of feed that could have been put to use instead of being burned. I have requested in a letter that you either allow this residue to be donated with no reduction to the CRP annual payment, or if used by the participant that an annual payment reduction would be assessed. You responded in a letter that this concern would be addressed in future CRP policy changes. The question I have is can you assure me today that CRP participants will no longer receive letters requiring them to destroy residue removed during mid-contract management – on any CRP practices?”

Backlog of Undetermined wetlands in South Dakota:

The 2014 Farm Bill included a provision that requires farmers to meet conservation compliance rules on their land in order to be eligible for crop insurance premium assistance. Farmers need wetland determinations from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to ensure tiling, ditching, and other water management practices meet NRCS conservation compliance rules. South Dakota has the highest number of undetermined wetlands in the United States.

“We’ve had for several years now, farmers in eastern and especially in northeastern South Dakota have been faced with flooding and drainage issues and thousands of requests have been made to NRCS for wetlands determinations so they know how to manage their land and still meet the conservation compliance provisions,” said Thune

“According to the most recent South Dakota NRCS report we still have more than 2,000 undetermined wetlands in the state – which is three times or more as many as in any other surrounding state.

“Farmers are concerned, our state’s farm and commodity organizations are concerned, and I believe the South Dakota NRCS office staff is making an effort to reduce this backlog – but so far Mr. Secretary, the results just haven’t materialized. I requested last summer a meeting and there were some personnel from NRCS headquarters that attended in Aberdeen, and we had more than 350 farmers there, which tells you kind of how important this issue is to them. I know [the NRCS staff] came back to Washington having heard first-hand the frustrations of some of these farmers due to the backlog. My question is: what more can you do at headquarters do to help get this wetlands determination backlog under control?”

###

Thune on Keystone Veto: Misguided Presidential Priorities

February 24, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Misguided Presidential Priorities

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement on President Obama’s veto of the bipartisan bill to approve the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline, which is supported by 62 senators and 270 representatives:

“It’s disappointing but not surprising that the president has yet again chosen his far-left environmental base over American jobs and opportunity.”

###

Rounds: President ‘Thumbed His Nose’ at American People

February 24, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds: President ‘Thumbed His Nose’ at American People

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today expressed his disappointment in President Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL legislation.

“Once again, the President has chosen to appease the far-left wing of his political base instead of doing what’s best for the American people,” said Rounds. “Our Keystone legislation is an important jobs, infrastructure and energy bill that received widespread, bipartisan support in Congress. In his veto, he has thumbed his nose at the American people who overwhelmingly support the project, our Canadian allies and the economic growth of our nation.”

The State Department has issued five environmental impact studies, all of which showed Keystone is not expected to have any significant effects on the environment. In South Dakota, the pipeline would mean more tax money for schools. It would also free up our railways, allowing South Dakota farmers to ship their grain to market in a faster, more cost-effective way.

###

Press Release: Noem Statement on President Obama’s Veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline

February 24, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Noem Statement on President Obama’s Veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today issued the following statement after President Obama issued a veto on S.1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act – a bill that passed both the House and Senate with bipartisan support:

“The President’s veto on Keystone was a veto on jobs, revenue for cash-strapped South Dakota counties, and much-needed relief on the roads and rails that are currently crowded with oil transit. This pipeline is a commonsense place to start as we work toward a stronger energy economy, because it’s a place where Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, and the overwhelming majority of Americans can find common ground. But the President vetoed that opportunity. I am hopeful this is not the end of the road for the pipeline and remain committed to doing all I can to see Keystone through.”

US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: Waters of the U.S. Rule Hurts South Dakota Producers

February 23, 2015February 23, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Waters of the U.S. Rule Hurts South Dakota Producers
February 23, 2015
U.S. Senator Mike Rounds

In South Dakota, agriculture is our number one industry, accounting for more than half of our economic output. To be successful, our farmers and ranchers must be good stewards of their land so that it remains viable. And they are. South Dakota producers are inherently good conservationists – their livelihoods depend on it. They don’t need the Obama Administration interfering in their conservation efforts.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers think they know how to manage our land better than us. Their latest proposal would redefine EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, expanding its regulatory authority to cover puddles, small ponds, field ditches and other areas with only remote connections to water, essentially allowing them to dictate farming operations.

Over the President’s Day recess, I hosted a roundtable discussion with area stakeholders in Sioux Falls to hear firsthand how the Waters of the U.S. proposal would impact agriculture. Representatives from the South Dakota Corn Growers Association, the South Dakota Soybean Association, Ag United, Minnehaha County and the South Dakota Farm Bureau all showed up and told me the same thing—the proposed rule would significantly handicap their day-to-day operations. Under the new rule, my understanding is that if a farmer wanted to spray fertilizer on his fields but part of it was connected to water – even temporarily – that farmer would have to apply for a permit before he or she could proceed so as not to contaminate that water. And we all know how well the federal government is at processing paperwork.

If the intent of the rule is merely to “clarify” the Clean Water Act and not change any policy – as EPA claims is the case – then they shouldn’t need this rule on the books at all. But I agree with farmers and ranchers that the rule would be a complete overhaul and expansion of EPA’s jurisdiction. In this case, I believe it is Congress’s duty to determine whether such a sweeping policy change is necessary. I’m confident that many of my colleagues would agree with me that the Waters of the U.S. proposal is completely unnecessary.

In 1972, the Clean Water Act established a system that gives the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers the ability to regulate navigable waters, such as rivers. It allows local governments to monitor smaller water features, like ditches, ponds, and streams because state and local governments are more in touch with economic and environmental situations on the ground. This has been working for the past 43 years – without the heavy hand of Washington getting in the way.

Giving the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers more control over our lives and land is both unnecessary and unwise. Every farmer and rancher I have talked to about this has agreed that the proposed rule would bog down their productivity with massive new regulatory hurdles. It is clear to me that the Waters of the U.S. proposal is fatally flawed. I will continue to seek ways to stop its implementation as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over EPA and the Army Corps.

###

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Where’s the Meat?

February 22, 2015 @SoDakCampaigns

Where’s the Meat?
By Senator John Thune

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_Congress Many of us recall the popular 1980s ad campaign by the fast food chain Wendy’s with its slogan, “Where’s the beef?” The ad poked fun at many fast food establishments for the sometimes small size of the hamburger patty compared with buns. Wendy’s gained attention for their clever ad that touched on the frustrations of many patrons who wanted more for their money. While the campaign is now a famous slogan in the advertising world, a slight modification of the slogan could highlight concerns about the new Obama administration report on 2015 dietary guidelines for Americans—“Where’s the meat?”

Every five years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review the dietary guidelines for American food consumption. A recent advisory committee report recommends to the agencies what should be included in the new dietary guidelines. The nearly 600-page report leaves lean red meat out of what it considers to be a healthy diet, which is not only a great concern to dietitians who support consumption of lean red meat but is also concerning for the South Dakota livestock industry.

This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has promoted limiting meat consumption. As you may recall, in 2012, USDA sent an in-house newsletter encouraging employees to participate in “Meatless Mondays” while dining in USDA cafeterias. The newsletter went on to attack the production of meat in the U.S., saying that meat production has “a large environmental impact,” and that an employee should “help yourself and the environment” by not eating meat.

It is hard to believe that the very agency tasked with promoting agriculture would encourage people not to eat meat. From the short-lived Meatless Mondays, to misguided dietary guidelines, farmers and ranchers deserve more of an ally in USDA, rather than an adversary. Misleading dietary guidelines would not only confuse consumers but would also harm South Dakota’s livestock industry.

I urge the Obama administration to reconsider the recommendations in the report. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees USDA, I will continue to closely monitor the guidelines as they move forward. As Kimberley and I continue to do our best to maintain a healthy diet, we’ll be supporting the products of farmers and ranchers across the state, including lean red meat, and I encourage South Dakotans to join me.

###