Congresswoman Noem’s Weekly Column: More Trade Can Bring Opportunity and Peace

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

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014When 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.”

###

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Eliminating Unnecessary Red Tape In State Government

Eliminating Unnecessary Red Tape In State Government
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

DaugaardEvery year, from the second Tuesday in January until mid-March, the South Dakota Legislature convenes in Pierre to create laws. Legislators come to town ready to offer proposals to improve our state and better serve South Dakotans.

This legislative session, a total of 429 bills were introduced and as I write this, I’ve signed 198 of those bills into law. But not every one of those bills creates new laws. We’ve also repealed laws. So far this year, I’ve signed 13 bills to repeal unnecessary and outdated laws.

With laws, more isn’t necessarily better. Laws should be clear and easy to follow. Government shouldn’t place unnecessary hurdles before our citizens or entrepreneurs, and things shouldn’t be overly complicated for people who are trying to know and obey the law.

That’s why a few years ago I started asking state agencies to identify provisions we can repeal.

With the help of the agencies and legislators, we’ve already gone a long way in removing unnecessary red tape in state government. In this legislative session alone, we have repealed 235 sections of law and 90 sections of administrative rules. Since beginning this effort in 2012, we have eliminated over 4,000 sections of law and regulations – which amounts to a total of 444,426 words that have been repealed.

We’ve repealed outdated provisions dealing with a wide range of subjects, from petroleum products, to county prisoners, to the federal census, to traction engines, to the medical department of the National Guard, and more.

I am grateful legislators have joined me in my effort to minimize red tape and I hope this is a habit that we will continue in years to come. Our efforts to cut red tape may not be creating headlines, but they’re important.

-30-

Back in the saddle at home base. Exhausted, but rewarded. The Kumbaya’s may now commence.

I’m back at the world’s messiest desk typing this out, as opposed to pecking things on my iPad as I hovered in the galleries at the legislature.  And I’m beat.

In a series of emotional highs and lows, this past week was spent over in Pierre as I worked and lobbied for changes to Senate Bill 190, the bill providing some mandated coverage for certain plans to provide therapy for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

After an original passage of a far from ideal measure in the Senate…  (Okay, parents hated it.) We were able to amend it in house committee & blew through in the House. We then found ourselves stymied as it returned to the Senate, it went to conference committee, and ultimately all parties were able to hammer out a compromise that I think everyone was able to live with.

IMG_1316

(Here’s a picture I snapped of the SB 190 conference committee as we met for the third and final time.)

Not having been through the conference committee process before with anything, it was extremely interesting. Basically, it was meet & discuss. Break for amendments. Meet again quickly to note that amendments were still being worked on, and then a full meeting where testimony was taken which consisted of everyone noting their acceptance and agreement of the negotiated language.

It was actually more collaborative and congenial than the process had been early on. Early on could be almost confrontational as each side in the matter put on a show of power, and drew a line in the sand. Once that was over, we got down to business, and were able to work out the concerns of each side.

As was noted in a release that went out this morning, there were a lot of people who worked to make the passage of the measure happen.  Rep. Scott Munsterman was a strong champion of ensuring parents had a strong part in the process, and has stuck with us for two years on the issue. And I don’t think the two sides could have been put together for a negotiated measure without Senator Corey Brown pushing to get something done, and bringing everyone together to meet in the middle.

But, there were so many more who played significant roles. Our parent’ group’s lobbyist Lisa Stanley was tireless, and made this all happen. Kitty Kinsman, lobbying for LifeScape in Sioux Falls was an experienced mentor lobbying alongside us, and helped keep us on track. Scott Parsley stood and gave us the opportunity for a vote in the Senate.. which we lost, but it was still important as a show of force.  Kim Malsam-Rysdon with the administration was also excellent to work with, and one of the reasons we were able to resolve insurers’ concerns, as well as for parents to get our big ‘get ‘ – a tiered service model.

I have to give kudos to some of the insurers involved for their willingness to work out the issues. And most of all, I have to give it to the parents who called, wrote and otherwise harangued their legislators to give consideration to the important issue of serving children on the autism spectrum, and giving them a better chance to contribute to society, as opposed to being a burden on it.

In the end, the bipartisan nature of the bill showed, as we won near unanimous votes in both the House and Senate, and the Governor has already stated that he’s going to sign it.

That’s not bad for a week in Pierre.

New legislator Lynne DiSanto poking at GOP colleagues as session ends, claiming they vote like Democrats.

This morning, Gordon Howie slobbers over Representative DiSanto, and prints a missive allegedly from her about her first legislative session. 

Unfortunately,  the missive’s purpose is to go all ‘Stace Nelson’ on her colleagues in the House Republican caucus:

I often get told that it is so unfair for the Democrats in our state government, since they are such a minority. But I can honestly say, it doesn’t matter. Many of these republicans vote more like democrats anyway. So, to my democrat friends, you are not in as much of a minority here as you think.

Read it here.

Rounds Questions Pentagon Officials on BRAC Process

Rounds Questions Pentagon Officials on BRAC Process

Continues Commitment to Protect Ellsworth Air Force Base

 

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Wednesday questioned Department of Defense (DoD) officials about the Administration’s proposal for another Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. When Rounds was working as governor during the last BRAC round (2005), Ellsworth Air Force Base was removed from DoD’s proposed closure list as a result of extensive information that South Dakota presented to the BRAC Commission. The BRAC Commission was created by Congress to conduct an independent and impartial review of DoD’s closure recommendations.

 

“Ellsworth Air Force Base is an important part of a long-term defense strategy,” said Rounds. “Because of the critical role it plays in protecting our nation, I want to make sure the Pentagon is using the best possible information should there be another BRAC round. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to seek ways to protect Ellsworth and the vital mission it performs for America.”

 

Full video of his questioning is available here: 

 

cid:image002.jpg@01D05CA0.5467DCC0

 

###

 

Thune Leads Call for USDA, HHS to Include Lean Red Meat in 2015 Dietary Guidelines

Thune Leads Call for USDA, HHS to Include Lean Red Meat in 2015 Dietary Guidelines

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today led 29 of his colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Burwell calling on the secretaries to stay within statutory guidelines, consider the most relevant nutrition scientific literature, and reject the committee’s inconsistent conclusions and recommendations regarding the role of lean red meat in a healthy diet. The letter also requests an extension of the 45-day comment period to ensure stakeholders have enough time to review and comment on the lengthy report.

 

Every five years, USDA and HHS review the dietary guidelines for American food consumption. A recent advisory committee report recommends to the agencies what foods 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 greatly concerns dietitians who support consumption of lean red meat and is alarming to the livestock, pork, and poultry industries.

 

The senators write in their letter, “We are concerned about this committee’s suggestion to decrease consumption of red and processed meats … this statement ignores the peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence that shows the role of lean red meats as part of a healthy diet … we have strong concerns with the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee going beyond its purview of nutrition and health research to include topics such as sustainability … We encourage you to carefully consider the most relevant nutrition scientific literature and reject the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s inconsistent conclusions regarding the role of meat in Americans’ diets as you finalize the Dietary Guidelines.”

 

Joining Thune in his letter are Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Angus King (I-Maine), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Rand Paul (R-Ken.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

 

The full text of the senators’ letter is available here:

__

 

March 12, 2015

 

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Secretary

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20201

 

The Honorable Thomas J. Vilsack

Secretary

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20250

 

Dear Secretaries Burwell and Vilsack,

 

We are concerned with the scientific integrity of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s recommendation to remove “lean meat” from the statement of a healthy dietary pattern, and we seek an extension of the 45-day comment period for stakeholders to comment on the “Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.”

 

We are concerned about this committee’s suggestion to decrease consumption of red and processed meats.  The report suggests that dietary patterns with positive health benefits are described as high in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, seafood, legumes, and nuts and moderate in low- and non-fat dairy products.  Dietary patterns with positive health benefits are also described as lower in red and processed meat. 

 

Unfortunately, this statement ignores the peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence that shows the role of lean red meats as part of a healthy diet.  Furthermore, the statement is misleading as it suggests current American diets include too much meat.  Government data shows the protein food category is the only food group being consumed within the 2010 daily recommended values.  It is misleading for the report to suggest eating less meat when lean meat is not being overconsumed based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommendations.   

 

Additionally, we have strong concerns with the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee going beyond its purview of nutrition and health research to include topics such as sustainability.  The 14-member advisory committee does not have the background or expertise required to make these suggestions in this report.  We strongly encourage you to stay within the statutory authority of your respective departments when finalizing the 2015 Dietary Guidelines.  

 

Not only do we represent farmers and ranchers who raise animals to provide healthy meat products, but we also represent consumers who enjoy lean meat as an important food in their diet.  The inconsistencies brought forward in the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s report are significant.  We encourage you to carefully consider the most relevant nutrition scientific literature and reject the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s inconsistent conclusions regarding the role of meat in Americans’ diets as you finalize the Dietary Guidelines. 

 

We request that you grant an extension of the comment period beyond the allotted 45 days, which expires on April 8, 2015.  It is important to allow enough time for interested stakeholders to carefully review the 571-page report.

 

Sincerely,

 

###

Company from Obamacare web site debacle working to get SD Bill collector project.

There are complaints and accusations on the house floor over HB 1228 that the measure is designed for the company, CGI, from the Obamacare website debacle, is working to get the SD Bill collector project being organized by the 1228.

One legislator commented that they’re concerned that the RFP is specifically designed for CGI and that they have 5 lobbyists roaming the halls. (Although, I’m told it was actually 2 who lobbied).

And there was grumbling that the bill is definitely not going to allow local companies to bid on the project.

What do you think about all of this?

Rapid City Civic Center proposal goes down.

from the Argus:

RAPID CITY — Rapid City residents have rejected a proposed $180 million expansion of the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center.

Unofficial returns from Tuesday’s election show 61 percent of the 12,902 voters were against the idea.

Read it here.

Was it a civic center too big to chew on? Or did supporters fail to make the sale?

And does it affect the mayor’s so far unopposed re-election at all?