American Innovation and Competitiveness Act Heads to Full Senate

“Today’s vote will be welcome news for universities throughout South Dakota as well as other research institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead.”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued the following statement after the committee approved S. 3084, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, by voice vote. The bipartisan legislation, of which Thune is a cosponsor, would maximize science research by reducing administrative burdens for researchers, enhancing agency oversight, improving research dissemination, and reforming federal science agencies to increase the impact of taxpayer-funded research.

“The committee’s passage of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act puts important enhancements for federal research and our economic competitiveness one step closer to becoming law,” said Thune. “Today’s vote will be welcome news for universities throughout South Dakota as well as other research institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead.”

S.3084 would reaffirm and update the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research upon which South Dakota research universities rely, improve coordination and planning of federal investments in high energy research at institutions like the Sanford Underground Research Facility, and update the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to better meet the needs of South Dakota small- and medium-sized businesses.

In June 2015, Thune and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), ranking member of the Commerce Committee, established an Innovation and Competitiveness Working Group, which convened a series of bipartisan roundtables to gather input from the U.S. science and research community. Public feedback received by the working group was used in part to craft this legislation.

In addition to its investment in scientific research, S. 3084 would reauthorize the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both of which are under the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction.

###

Under a comment recently, someone (anonymous, of course) in the midst of trash-talking had made the claim that the past election was a referendum against “Republicans In Name Only” and represented a major conservative sweep of the primary elections.

That had me questioning this anonymous thesis, because to my knowledge, it was utterly wrong. And not just the usual wrongness exhibited by anonymous commentators, it was completely wrong!

Why do I think this? Look at how the results in the State Senate races came out. But don’t just look at the names – look at WHY they won:

Winners are tagged in red, those who I would argue won based on ideology are tagged in dark red.  I also tried to highlight the factors I viewed as the primary reason they won.

In D5, Tapio ran a very aggressive campaign and spent a lot of money. His signs were all over the place.  Tidemann had strong name ID, and ran an aggressive campaign.  Deb Peters was a campaign machine. In D19, Stace Nelson had the benefit of being on a statewide ballot the previous year. Ryan Maher had good name ID, and ran hard. Same with Solano, Partridge & Haverly.

In only two races, could we argue it might have come down to conservative versus a less conservative opponent – in Russell and Jensen’s victories, because name ID would be said to be very equal in those cases.

And that brings up something I’ve been taught, on why people cast ballots for elections, and that still holds very true – the Know-Like-Trust test.  In the Know-Like-Trust test, with two candidates, all things being equal, they’ll vote for the candidate they know, over the one they don’t.  If they know them both, they’ll vote for the one they like. And if they like them both, they’ll cast a ballot for the one they trust.

In this case, I’m not seeing anything that puts a dent into this maxim of politics. Name ID and campaigning had the day. And in those cases where they knew them both, I’d argue only then were the candidates able to successfully pivot from pure name ID to fighting it out on the basis of issues.

So was it a conservative wave? I’d argue no. Absolutely not. It was a campaigning wave!

And a good lesson to candidates that if they want to win, they need to be ready to put in the work.

I believe I told you all that you need to keep an eye on District 8 Senate:

More than four months before the general election, Youngberg has a surprisingly large number of campaign signs along S.D. 34 between I-29 and Madison.

and…

The history and the early activity this year suggest District 8 Senate is a contest to watch.

Read it all here.

From the Argus Leader, it sounds as if the Governor, like many others, was a protest vote for “not Donald Trump” in the recent GOP Primary election earlier this month.

South Dakota’s Republican governor didn’t mark his ballot for the party’s presumptive nominee in this month’s South Dakota GOP primary.

“I voted for John Kasich,” Gov. Dennis Daugaard told reporters Tuesday in Sioux Falls.

Read it here.

Governor, you were in good company. Trust me. With 10,659 others.

Noem, Cramer, Peterson Introduce Legislation to Address Wetland Determination Backlog

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Kristi Noem (R-SD), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Collin Peterson (D-MN) today introduced the bipartisan Wetland Determinations Efficiency and Transparency Act.  This legislation aims to address the backlog of wetland determinations and enact permanent reforms that make the determination process more efficient, accountable, and transparent.

“Part of promoting sustainable conservation practices is ensuring programs and processes work for the producers who use them,” said Rep. Noem.  “Waiting years before knowing whether a person can improve their land without jeopardizing a wetland or their participation in farm programs is an unacceptable and costly delay.  Together with Reps. Cramer and Peterson, we are offering real reforms that can help eliminate the backlog and ensure timely and accurate determinations are made from here on out.”

“Not since the 1990s has there been serious discussion about Swampbuster, at least not with landowner and producers’ best interests in mind,” said Rep. Cramer. “From streamlining wetland certifications to due process reform, this bill is a package of common-sense improvements which will benefit not only landowners and producers, but also the environment.  With the next Farm Bill on the near horizon, I look forward to working with Kristi and Collin, and engaging with our stakeholders, to help make these reforms reality.”

“This bill starts the conversation about how we can help address the wetland determination backlog facing producers in our region,” said Rep. Peterson.  “I will continue to work with my colleagues to give producers the tools they need to make improvements on their land which can increase yields, reduce the risk of flooding, and improve water quality, as well as make it easier to stay in compliance with conservation rules.”

The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for determining whether land qualifies as a wetland, and therefore, is protected for conservation purposes according to so-called “Swampbuster” rules.  If property is determined to be a wetland, certain changes – such as laying drain tile in a field – are not allowed without a landowner losing the ability to participate in federal farm bill programs and crop insurance.  In recent years, producers have faced a significant backlog in wetland determination.  As of June 1, 2016, 3,086 requests were outstanding in the Prairie Pothole Region – 1,374 of which were made in South Dakota, 757 in North Dakota, and 325 in Minnesota.

“Many Farmers in South Dakota are experiencing challenges in receiving timely and accurate wetland determinations from the NRCS. We’ve been calling for increased transparency, timely determinations including a fair and efficient appeals process for many years,” said Jerry Schmitz, farmer from Vermillion and President of the South Dakota Soybean Association. “We want to thank Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for their leadership on this critical issue, and for their strong support of farmers across the U.S. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of farmers within our state.”

“Several years of waiting to get optimal production out of a piece of property can have serious financial consequences for a producer,” said Scott VanderWal, President of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.  “A more timely and transparent process will help landowners better understand if the use of water management practices to enhance the soil for crop production is available to them.  We’re grateful to Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for offering a solution that makes the determinations process more efficient and accountable.”

“We are grateful to have someone like Representative Noem and her colleagues recognize how crucially important it is to make the wetland determination process easier for producers,” said Doug Sombke, President of South Dakota Farmers Union.  “While the backlog has decreased this year, it gives us a critical opportunity to move reforms forward before requests spike again.”

“The South Dakota Corn Growers have supported farmers using the best stewardship practices available,” said Keith Alverson, President South Dakota Corn Growers Association.  “It is important that farmers have answers to these wetland determinations and congresswoman Noem’s legislation helps address those issues.  We appreciate her efforts on this.”

More specifically, the Noem-Cramer-Peterson legislation would:

• Ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be given 60 days to make wetland determinations, after which producers would be protected from penalties during a transition period to come back into compliance.
• Make the appeals process more efficient.  If a producer believes a determination is incorrect, they would be given the option of either going through the administrative appeals process or appealing directly to the federal district court.
• Allow third parties to be better used as a resource to shrink backlog and ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be able to utilize approved third-party data and technical assistance when making a final certification, leveraging outside expertise without a cost to taxpayers.
• Improve transparency. Clarifies in law the NRCS’s responsibility to share any and all information used for the determination with producers.  Additionally, the legislation puts the burden of proof to the federal government, rather than the producer.

###

Democrats Reject Critical Funding to Combat Zika Virus

“Democrats are apparently more interested in pacifying a Democrat special-interest group than they are in actually doing anything about Zika. This is election-year politics at its worst. The American people know it, and they deserve better.”  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after Senate Democrats blocked the military construction, veterans affairs, and Zika appropriations conference report, legislation that would have funded numerous programs to support America’s veterans as well as vital military construction projects:

“I’m disappointed that just days before the July 4 holiday, Senate Democrats voted in lockstep to deny funding for America’s veterans and for important construction projects that would support the mission of our military personnel around the globe,” said Thune. “It sends all the wrong messages to our veterans and their families, the men and women who currently serve in the military, and the rest of the American people.”

The bill also contained a key provision that would have provided critical funding to combat the emerging threat posed by the Zika virus. The House-Senate negotiated bill would have provided funding for immediate needs like mosquito control programs and for longer-term goals like vaccine development and treatments.

“It’s highly disingenuous for Senate Democrats to on the one hand say the Zika threat requires immediate attention and then on the other hand block critical funding designed to tackle this problem early in the mosquito season,” continued Thune. “Democrats are apparently more interested in pacifying a Democrat special-interest group than they are in actually doing anything about Zika. This is election-year politics at its worst. The American people know it, and they deserve better.”

Just last month, every Senate Democrat voted for a separate Zika response bill with a funding level identical to that in the current proposal.

Prior to today’s vote, Thune spoke on the Senate floor and urged his colleagues to support this common-sense bill.

###

Rounds Issues Statement on Senate Passage of BUILD Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today issued the following statement on the Senate passage of S. 1479, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development (BUILD) Act, of which he is a cosponsor. The legislation passed by unanimous consent.

“A number of South Dakota communities have benefited from the Brownfields program, which provides federal funding for technical assistance grants to small communities and rural areas,” Rounds said. “Reauthorization of the program will allow state and local governments to clean up polluted areas so they are once again safe for use. I’m pleased the BUILD Act passed the Senate and look forward to seeing it enacted in the near future.”

On June 2, 2015, Rounds joined EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and a group of bipartisan senators in introducing S. 1479, the BUILD Act. The legislation would make several enhancements to the program, including (1) prioritizing technical assistance grants for Brownfields projects in small communities, Indian tribes, rural areas and disadvantaged areas, (2) establishing a program to provide grants to locate clean energy projects at Brownfields sites, and (3) expanding funding eligibility for governmental entities that did not cause or contribute to the contamination.

On Feb. 2, the BUILD Act was adopted as an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S.2012), which passed the Senate on April 20 and is currently being conferenced with the House.

On May 18, the BUILD Act was reported out of the EPW Committee by voice vote.

###

In the past couple of weeks, I caught wind of an interesting Rotary Club Meeting in Sioux Falls, with guest speaker Shantel Krebs appearing before the group, making a speech that had some questioning whether it was a talk from the Secretary of State, or her Gubernatorial kickoff.

In fact, I’m told a person formerly affiliated with the State’s largest newspaper made a statement/inquired to that end.

Coverage of the meeting did make the news on KELO…

As for the future beyond that, an audience member asked Krebs directly if she would ever consider running for a higher office.

“I see an opportunity for things like zero based budgeting. I want to challenge those state agencies to do so. I want a full review of all the taxes. Why these taxes have been imposed and where do they go? That review hasn’t been done since the 1970’s, so when you say that, I think there’s work to be done.” Krebs said.

Krebs says her passion is restoring trust in government and that it begins with accountability and transparency.

Read that all here.

… but some of what wasn’t covered in the story was equally as interesting, because as she talked about what needed to take place in how state government is being run, some of the comments burned her colleagues in Pierre a bit to this audience.

The statement above about ‘no review of where taxes go since the 1970’s‘ seemed to be a somewhat acerbic commentary of the appropriations process.

What wasn’t mentioned is that I was told directly by people in the audience that she was quite pointed in comments about conflicts of interest, using the term corruption. But as also was related to me, she quickly turned aside a question by State Representative and incoming Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson who was in attendance.*

Lighting torches to challenge other offices on their budget, demanding a review about how taxes are levied and spent, and talking about how Pierre is corrupt is not what you typically hear from the State’s chief elections officer. However, it does sound like a stump speech for someone who has their eye on the Governor’s race.

Appearances like this may be direct overtures for higher office in 2018, coming at the same time when competitors such as Mickelson, and Jackley are out on the stump for South Dakota’s highest State Office.

One major difference is that while others have started or are starting to assemble campaign teams, it puts the Secretary of State in a position of potentially having to do so and raise money for it as we move through the next several months of the 2016 election cycle, and officially kick off the race for Governor in 2018.

(*Update – Now, I did have someone who was in attendance contact me, and tell me that they remember the question from Mickelson was not on conflict of interest laws, but on another topic, although they did confirm that his question was “deflected.” So I did change that to be a bit less specific.)