Rounds Reaffirms Commitment to Repeal Pay Ratio Rule

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today reaffirmed his commitment to repeal the pay ratio rule embedded in Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is voting today to adopt the pay ratio rule.

“The pay ratio rule is a waste of time, effort and money, and the SEC is misguided in voting to adopt this duplicative, unnecessary rule,” said Rounds “Repealing the pay ratio rule – as my legislation seeks to do – would allow companies to find more productive uses of their time and money so they can invest in the future and create jobs. I will work to move it forward in the legislative process.”

The statute requires the SEC to promulgate a rule requiring companies to disclose the pay ratio of their CEO compared to a company’s median workers. Section 953 is not only redundant because CEO pay is already public, it would also cost businesses millions of dollars in compliance costs.

###

I have to admit, the Jeb Bush guacamole bowl is one piece of campaign memorabilia I have not seen in other campaigns to date.

I’ve written more about it on facebook than here, but you might recall that ‘d all but abandoned my hopes of expanding my little concrete pad that passed for a patio this year until I’d stumbled across a pile of lumber at the local Habitat for Humanity ReStore.

And that lumber became the genesis for the biggest project I’ve ever taken on.

ReStore is a great resource for old furniture, light fixtures, building materials, and most anything you can think of in a thrift store, sans clothing. I go out there from time to time to see what they have. And in the latest trip to see what I could see, I went out back to a lumber pile, and noticed that they had a big pile of lumber that at one time had been painted for the SDSU Jacks.

It was explained to me that all these boards of blue and gold had been left over from the stadium demolition. Much of the lumber had gone to stadium benches which were sold to alumni. And they were more interesting, as they had been painted with row numbers. What was in the pile were the more boring or pedestrian boards that they didn’t want, or couldn’t use.

Noticing that it was a big pile of 18 foot long 2×10 lumber, which retailed in the neighborhood of $50 a board for treated lumber at Lowe’s, I asked the ReStore people “how much?”

The reply? “$5 a board.”   And I couldn’t load it fast enough.

The cheap lumber left me to imagine how I was going to put this together from a pile of boards I possibly sat on as an undergraduate student, into a structure that my family could use and enjoy for many years to come.

Here I might mention that I’ve never built a deck before. But, I watch the DIY Channel. I’m game!

I found that my inexperience would crop up from time to time, especially as I was measuring for my decking. On one occasion, I seem to recall exclaiming to myself “Why are these posts 12 feet apart, and these at the bottom are 12’4″?  I measured twice!”

I found myself running back to Habitat ReStore on more than one occasion for “just another couple of SDSU Bleacher boards” for various reasons; whether it was to add support, or to fix my goof-ups.

And in constructing it, I found creative solutions to some of those various goof-ups, such as breaking up the 12ft spans of decking with a board in the middle, masking my post mismeasurement, as well that little thing where I omitted the width of the lumber bolted to the outside of the posts in my calculations.

Did I mention I hadn’t build a deck before?

After going on vacation for a week, I returned and dug into the deck once more with gusto, adding railings, 2 sets of stairs, and finally a pergola to outline where my outdoor kitchen will be.

An open corner will hold a plant, or a planter box, so I don’t have to do try to make a post and short railing sturdy enough to weather kids hanging on it all the time.  I’ll cull through the leftovers to see if I’ve got something to make hand rails out of for the stairs. And I’ll add some decorative trim to mask the underside of the deck.

But for now, my deck of SDSU leftovers is looking pretty darned good for an alumnus of the SDSU political science program (versus the engineering or construction management programs), to the point where I’m not afraid to put the family on it

You know, what they say is true. You CAN go anywhere from SDSU.  As far as these bleachers are concerned, you can go from life as seating for thousands of football enthusiasts to a new home and life entertaining and helping a Brookings family enjoy the outdoors for years to come.

South Dakota’s US Senator Mike Rounds is featured in an article on the Roll Call web site about the “Former Governor Caucus,” discussing the difference between running the show, and being one of many:

Just six months into his Senate tenure, Rounds, who is interested in a biennial budget process as well, is still getting used to his position as a junior member, particularly with crucial legislative deadlines coming to a head in the fall.

“As a new member, not being directly involved with those discussions on a regular basis, it’s frustrating, where as governor you’d be right in the middle of things,” he said.

and…

When King approached Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about the Former Governors Caucus, he told the Kentucky Republican that some suggested the group be called the Extremely Frustrated Caucus.

“Then Mitch said, ‘Well, I’ve found if you have a former governor who’s now a senator and you ask him which job they like better, if they tell you senator they’ll lie to you about other things.’ I thought that was a pretty good way to put it,” King said, laughing.

Read it all here.

Thune, Rounds Introduce Legislation to Authorize Permanent Land Transfer for Expansion of Black Hills National Cemetery

Similar Land Transfers Have Occurred at the Minuteman Missile Site and Wind Cave National Park

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today introduced the Black Hills National Cemetery Boundary Expansion Act, legislation to facilitate a permanent land transfer of approximately 200 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to expand the Black Hills National Cemetery outside of Sturgis.

“All of the agencies that are involved in this process want to see a permanent land transfer between BLM and the Black Hills National Cemetery,” said Thune. “This transfer is neither controversial nor unprecedented, so I hope our legislation moves through the Senate swiftly so the transfer process can begin as soon as possible. This expansion will help ensure that we can continue to honor our veterans with a dignified burial in the beautiful Black Hills National Cemetery for generations to come.”

“This permanent land transfer guarantees that generations of veterans will be able to rest peacefully in the Black Hills National Cemetery,” said Rounds. “I’m hopeful that this noncontroversial proposal will move quickly through Congress.”

Under current law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act limits transfers like this one to a lifespan of 20 years. The Black Hills National Cemetery Boundary Expansion Act would make this particular transfer permanent.

###

Thune Highlights Accomplishments in the Republican-Led Senate

“The first seven months of the 114th Congress have been some of the most productive the Senate has had in a long time.”

Thursday night is the first debate of the 2016 Presidential Primary. As we all know, Trump has vaulted to the top of the polls since announcing (around 25%). As background of the current situation on the primary dynamics, I think there is merit in seeing who Trumps rapid rise came from by comparing the FoxNews poll before Trump announced (6-2-15) and the most recent poll (8-2-15).

Trump: +22%
Walker: -3%
Carson: -4%
Cruz: -2%
Rubio: -2%
Paul: -4%
Christie: -2%
Perry: -3%
Graham: -2%

The candidates who seem to be unaffected by Trump are:

Bush: +3%
Kasich: +1%
Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina: 0%

What does this mean:

1) It establishes a benchmark on movement from the upcoming debates.

2) It identifies the bottom tier candidates who have to show some movement or they will have trouble with money and attracting organization. Bottom tier as measured with current support @ 3% or below: Christie, Kasich, Perry, Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham. Including undecided, this bottom-tier represents 21% of the GOP primary voters.

3) I said a few months ago that I wouldn’t start paying attention until the top three candidates exceed 50%. Right now, FoxNews has Trump, Bush, & Walker at 50% and the average of recent polls these three are @ 45%. If after this debate, support for the bottom tier drifts to the top three, we might hit that 50% much sooner than I expected. If that occurs, I suspect the bottom tier will quickly fade/disappear and it will be most interesting to see where their supporters will gravitate.  When a candidate gets to 40%, they start winning individual state primaries at a faster clip than anyone else and start racking up delegate votes.

4) It gives an indication of the candidates (those who declined) who during the last two months didn’t have messages that added support, who currently have soft support, and who may be at risk of falling away sooner than later.

5) It is doubtful ANYONE will “win” the Fox Debate in any way that will be long-lasting but MANY can lose it (ala Perry, Bachman, Gingrich, Huntsman in the last cycle’s Fox Debate in Sioux City).

6) #5 aside, there can be winners who get “gravitas bumps.” Fiorina, Carson, & Trump as the “non-politicos.” Paul, Kasich, & Jindal as the intellectual policy wonks. Walker & Cruz as the biggest contrasts to Obama within the “politicos.”

7) What is the impact of the bottom tier debate (Santorum, Jindal, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki and Perry)? Will it have enough viewership? Does the smaller quantity on the debate panel give them a better opportunity to shine?

8) Who gains by Trump leading in the polls? I think Bush and Walker because nobody will focus on attacking them.  Bush and Walker just need to not get injured and wait until the field is winnowed down as they need others support to drift to them.

9) Debate dynamics. It will be interesting to see if one person focuses on Trump (ala Gingrich’s focus on Romney), if the preponderance of candidates do (ala the 1980 New Hampshire debate against Reagan), or if they ignore him or just roll their eyes at him (ala the Democrats and John Edwards). Watch Perry who seems the most opposed to Trump’s presence to be most likely to focus on Trump.

10) Look ahead to the General Election. In 2012, Republican debate participants made a lot of assertions why they would be best to run against Obama. Will they do the same with regard to Clinton? Or will they ignore her thinking she is not going to be the nominee because of her current problems?

11)  Who has the most to lose (besides leader Trump)?

• Huckabee & Santorum because they have “been there done that.”
• Senate Quad (Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Graham) because neither distancing themselves or embracing their colleagues/body will net gains and potentially more to lose, making the line for them to walk quite treacherous.
• Governors not named Walker (Christie, Kasich, Perry, Jindal) because they have to first stand-out among themselves before worrying about Walker which is again a treacherous walk.
• Fiorina as the only woman.  If she can’t get a bump here, will she ever?
• See #8.   Playing it too safe can be Bush’s & Walker’s undoing.

12)  Wildcard Issue which can impact the debate by making a candidate stand-out as “Presidential:”  Iran Nuclear Deal.  More than Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, deficit/budget, or economy, I think this issue has the most potential to capture new support.

13)  To be in the “Top 10,” FoxNews went down to 3% support in the polls.  I think the next threshold will be 8-9% to be in the new threshold of “Top 7 or 8” which puts Cruz, Rubio & Paul on the bubble.  I’m thinking Rubio & Paul are most likely to pull the trigger and drop out if they don’t get a bump because they are also up for re-election to the Senate.

14)  Final comments:  Carson, Cruz, Perry, Santorum, & Fiorina will stick around through Iowa & New Hampshire because they have no downside in staying in not matter what.  Kasich, Jindal, & Graham lose standing if they ride the horse with little chance of succeeding.

Sidenote: I selected FoxNews as a baseline because they are most likely to have a poll hitting the streets upon conclusion of the debates as they are the hosts. And, more importantly, methodologies of the polls are the same taking out as variables underlying assumptions of turn-out so to some degree we are comparing apples to apples.

Rounds Opening Statement at Oversight Hearing on “Sue and Settle”

U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, provided the following opening statement at today’s hearing, entitled “Oversight of Litigation at the EPA and FWS: Impacts on the U.S. Economy, States, Local Communities and the Environment.”

The purpose of the hearing is to hear testimony on litigation against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and its impact on the regulatory process and the environment as well as implications of subsequent regulations on the economy, states, and communities.

Rounds’ Opening Statement as Prepared for Delivery:

The Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight is meeting today to conduct a hearing on “Oversight of Litigation at EPW and Fish and Wildlife Service: Impacts on the U.S. Economy, States, Local Communities and the Environment.”

Today, we are meeting to hear testimony on the impact environmental litigation has on the economy, states and communities.

Both the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act contain provisions allowing for citizens to file a “citizen suit” against a regulatory agency to assure an agency’s compliance with federal statutes.

While originally well-intentioned, these citizen suits are being used to perpetuate what is often referred to as a “sue and settle” process that overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees requiring agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline.

These agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors, with little to no transparency or public input.

Although the ultimate parties responsible for the regulations are the states and regulated entities, they have been nearly completely cut out of the process and are not consulted about the practical effects of the settlement agreement.

Public comments from the states and industries regarding the feasibility or impact of these regulations are routinely ignored.

Further, these citizen suits allow Non-Government Organizations – or NGOs – and the Administration to advance their own policy agenda while circumventing the entire legislative process and Congress.

As a result, major regulations that cost billions of dollars, stifle economic growth and inhibit job creation are being made by unelected bureaucrats in Washington who think that they know what is best for everyone.

Under the Clean Air Act, citizen suits have been used to impose major regulations without any input from Congress and little to no input from the states.

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that EPA reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards could cost up to $90 billion annually to comply with – making it the most expensive regulation in history.

Further, states have been so entirely shut out of the process that their opposition is rarely given serious consideration.

When the EPA promulgated sulfur dioxide regulations, every single state that commented about the regulation voiced its opposition.

But rather than working with the states to address their concerns, the EPA ignored their comments and moved forward with the regulation.

Additionally, the Fish and Wildlife Services is in the middle of potentially listing more than 250 species as endangered or threatened on the Endangered Species List.

Called one of the largest federal land grabs in modern times, this is the result of a mega-settlement between the Fish and Wildlife Service and NGO’s that intentionally overwhelmed the agency with listing petitions simply so they could sue the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to meet statutory deadlines.

Because the Fish and Wildlife Service is now bound to court imposed deadlines to make these listing decisions, the agency is rarely inclined to engage states, industries and landowners in real conservation efforts.

As a result, these listings exemplify heavy-handed federal regulation rather than serious collaborative efforts to conserve and recover species.

The impact of these lawsuits is being especially felt in South Dakota, where our only coal plant, the Big Stone plant, is in the midst of a $400 million dollar upgrade to comply with EPA’s regional haze rule.

This project is not even completed yet, and now this plant may not even be able to operate at all in order to comply with the Administration’s Clean Power Plan.

The “sue and settle” process has resulted in regulations that stifle innovation and hurt the future of this country by crushing the can-do American spirit that founded our nation, settled the West, won two world wars and put a man on the moon.

I’d like to thank our witnesses for being with us here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

###