Thune, Luján Lead Fight For Cattle Producers, Demand Halt of Brazilian Fresh Beef Imports

Senators support cattle industry’s recent requests for USDA to immediately suspend fresh beef imports from Brazil

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today led a bipartisan group of senators in expressing support for the cattle industry’s recent requests for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately suspend fresh beef imports from Brazil. In 2017, Brazilian fresh beef imports were suspended due to food safety concerns, and USDA allowed these imports to resume in 2020. The senators are concerned with Brazil’s recent failure to quickly disclose two cases of atypical spongiform encephalopathy – a neurological disease of cattle – which could pose a significant threat to the health and safety of the U.S. cattle herd.

“Cattle producers across the country work hard to produce the highest quality beef in the world,” the senators wrote. “This industry should not be jeopardized by Brazilian beef imports that may contaminate U.S. herds and our food supply. We support the requests to suspend Brazilian fresh beef imports until a thorough investigation can be made into Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply food safety review process.”

In February 2020, Thune led a bipartisan group of his colleagues in sending a letter to USDA questioning the department’s decision to lift the U.S. ban on Brazilian beef imports.

This letter was also signed by U.S. Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.).

Full letter below:

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C., 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

We write to express support for the cattle industry’s recent requests for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately suspend fresh beef imports from Brazil.

As you know, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a significant concern for cattle producers and consumers, and the United States has gone to great lengths to put in place extensive interlocking safeguards to ensure our cattle producers and consumers are protected from this devastating disease.  In 2017, Brazilian fresh beef imports were suspended due to food safety concerns, and unfortunately, USDA allowed these imports to resume in 2020.

Due to a lengthy delay in the reporting of two recent atypical BSE cases, we have concerns that these events are evidence that Brazil may lack credible animal health and food safety systems. While health officials state these two atypical BSE cases arose spontaneously in the infected cattle, Brazil’s irresponsible behavior may pose a significant threat to the health and safety of the U.S. cattle herd.

We believe these concerns warrant the immediate suspension of Brazil’s fresh beef imports until a thorough review can be performed by USDA and livestock producers can be assured that Brazilian beef does not place our herds or consumers at risk from BSE or other potentially devastating livestock diseases.

Cattle producers across the country work hard to produce the highest quality beef in the world.  This industry should not be jeopardized by Brazilian beef imports that may contaminate U.S. herds and our food supply.

We support the requests to suspend Brazilian fresh beef imports until a thorough investigation can be made into Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply food safety review process.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

###

‘Build Back Better’ is Democrats’ Down Payment on Socialism
By Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)
Fox News

You may not realize it, but Congress is in the midst of a consequential debate about the future of our country. We’re debating your future. Your family’s future. The outcome could affect generations of Americans to come.

You’ve probably heard arguments about the magnitude of the Democrats’ latest partisan spending bill and the justifiable concerns about dumping trillions of dollars (on top of the trillions that have already been spent this year) into the economy. Economists, including former Obama administration officials, have warned about the effect it would have on the already painful inflation that’s being felt by everyday families in all corners of our country.

My Republican colleagues and I believe the bill is a reckless tax-and-spending spree, and it is. But, aside from the staggering price tag and the immediate consequences of inflation-driven pain in your pocketbook, there’s more to what Democrats are trying to ram through Congress this holiday season.

The debate now is a fundamental fight about the future of our country, and an almost evenly divided Congress is about to decide how far the long arm of federal government will reach into your everyday life.

Beyond hyperbole, Democrats want to increase the federal government’s reach into nearly every step of a person’s life from cradle to grave. And if they’re successful in passing their reckless tax-and-spending spree, there will be no turning back.

The Democrats’ vision for America involves monthly allowances from the government, even to illegal immigrants. It involves Uncle Sam taking charge of your child care, which will lead to fewer options to choose from and higher costs for families. Faith-based child care providers, which 53% of working families use, would be discriminated against for government funding and put at a serious disadvantage. Taxpayers would be on the hook for paying for union membership dues, and consumers would be discriminated against if buying nonunion assembled electric vehicles.

More and more Americans would rely on an expanded welfare state, receiving handouts without work requirements. Entitlement programs that are already facing insolvency would be expanded even further, jeopardizing the safety net millions of Americans rely on and our country’s long-term financial stability.

If Democrats have their way, workers can expect slower wage growth as job-creators are forced to pay more in taxes. Families can expect higher taxes, higher prices and a more intrusive IRS that would loom large over law-abiding Americans as Democrats scramble to try and pay for this unneeded spending spree. Imagine that – purportedly paying for a partisan tax-and-spending spree by making the IRS bigger and more powerful than it already is.

And then there’s the Green New Deal-style policies. Democrats would like the government to pick and choose the energy sources for your home and your car. If you think gas is expensive now, and it is, just wait until the Democrats’ policies further drive up the cost of electricity, natural gas and gasoline – all while subsidizing Democrats’ preferred green technologies.

I will continue to support renewable energy and increased energy innovation and efficiency, but America is still going to rely on liquid fuels for the foreseeable future. It’s just a fact, for which consumers and the economy shouldn’t be punished by the Democrats’ policies.

And at a time when businesses are struggling to find workers, Democrats want to provide government jobs, tuition and loan assistance, and other benefits for climate activists. Billions of taxpayer dollars would be spent on “tree equity,” “urban agriculture,” “environmental justice programs” for schools and other progressive pet projects that amount to slush funds for cities.

This vision for our country runs counter to everything Republicans – and I believe a majority of Americans – stand for, which is why not one single Republican will support the Democrats’ down payment on socialism.

We believe in letting people keep more of their hard-earned money and limiting the government’s power and control. We want a future where an individual’s outcome is determined by their work ethic, not bureaucrats and “we-know-best” Democrats in Washington, D.C.

At the most basic level, Republicans want to create an environment that encourages economic opportunity for all – as a party, we believe there is dignity and value in work for families, communities and the economy.

Thankfully, this radical vision for America can be stopped in its tracks today. All it would take is one brave Senate Democrat who would be willing to stand up and save the country from this partisan spending bill’s enormous cost on the economy, our future and Americans’ freedom.

Any Democrat could pick from a long menu of reasons to oppose it, and he or she would be doing the country a great service.

###

State Representative Scott Odenbach, who has been at loggerheads with Governor Kristi Noem this year over calling a special session to impose laws to prevent businesses to require vaccinations, is firing off a salvo at the Governor criticizing her budget proposal as a “Blue State Budget,” and trying to paint Governor Noem as somehow being a liberal:

 

 

This might be the first time I’ve ever heard anyone trying to accuse Governor Noem of “big government Socialism.”

Unfortunately, I believe the “use it or lose it” funds from the Federal Government come with a number of constraints, so I don’t know if it’s quite so easy to just give it away, as much as to use it for projects, such as long, long overdue dam repair and other infrastructure needs. And if we can use it for job training and workforce housing, those are actually critical areas of need right now. And I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think their educators and state employees don’t need an increase about now.

In prior years, much of the windfall would have been squirreled away into the reserve. Here we have an opportunity for a largely federal-paid boost into improving our state’s economy.

Your thoughts?

Gov. Kristi Noem targets funding solutions for workforce needs across South Dakota

PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Kristi Noem on Tuesday outlined her vision for using the upcoming budget cycle to strategically address one of the state’s primary issues: workforce needs.

“Something pretty incredible happened in South Dakota over the last two years. There has been a dramatic increase in new residents to our state. They’re coming here for many reasons, but the main reasons are because we respect freedom, our taxes are low, and we cut red tape so people and businesses can succeed,” Governor Noem said in her address to lawmakers in the House chamber.

That growth has increased the need for housing, competitive pay for state workers, affordable daycare, more skills training to grow the available workforce, and more. These needs are being felt in cities and towns across the state. By leveraging federal dollars and targeted state funding, Governor Noem said we keep South Dakota’s people competitive in the changing economy.

The Governor is recommending the following targeted funding initiatives:

• $200 million in workforce housing grants: $150 million in general funds for workforce housing infrastructure and $50 million in ARPA funding for sewer infrastructure;
• 6% pay increase for state workers, a 6% increase to state aid for education that should go to educators, and a 6% increase for our healthcare providers;
• $100 million for the Department of Social Services to provide grants for startup and one-time costs for new daycare centers;
• $30 million to facilitate new cybersecurity training at Dakota State University;
• $17 million to enhance workforce training capacity at Lake Area Technical College, Southeast Technical College, and Mitchell Technical College;
• $35 million in marketing for tourism and workforce recruitment for industries affected by the pandemic; and
• $2.5 million to make Bright Start a statewide program to help eligible new mothers and their babies.

Other highlights from the Governor’s budget address included investing in the future with a landmark $1.5 billion investment of local, state, and federal dollars for water projects across the state. Governor Noem also offered recommendations on funding for public safety, investing in expanding available campgrounds at Custer State Park, and technology upgrades to expand EMS services in rural communities.

A full version of the speech may be found here. A video of the speech may be viewed here. The full media kit for Governor Noem’s recommendations for “Investing in our People” may be downloaded here.

###

Tonight the House passed the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that I led with @RepGaramendi to address the supply chain crisis. This bill puts American consumers, farmers, retailers, truckers, manufacturers, and small businesses first. #OSRA21 pic.twitter.com/CI40M6IfCm

— Rep. Dusty Johnson (@RepDustyJohnson) December 8, 2021

It looks like ‘rapid response’ in not in the Haugaard campaign lexicon, as a press release went out this afternoon to take issue with yesterday’s Budget address by Governor Kristi Noem:

STEVE HAUGAARD RESPONDS TO NOEM’S BUDGET ADDRESS

Sioux Falls, SD — After deeper review of Governor Noem’s budget recommendations for the coming fiscal year, Representative Steve Haugaard had the following to say:

“South Dakota has had a massive influx of federal handouts due to COVID-19 stimulus money. It’s eight times higher than a typical fiscal year’s worth of federal funding, and the largest federal handout per capita than any other state. Furthermore, the taxes we have collected as a state have increased primarily because of inflation and skyrocketing property values. As a result, I’m afraid a lot of what we heard today sounds like the Christmas wish list of a kid in a candy store. For better or worse, the legislature isn’t Santa Claus. We need to steward that money wisely, and make sure we don’t commit to massive spending projects that we won’t be able to fund forever.”

He continued, “Something we didn’t hear anything about today are some tax decreases. Given rising property values and skyrocketing inflation, I think that’s something we should strongly consider. Ultimately, the legislature will decide the state’s budget for the coming fiscal year.”

Haugaard concluded, “Noem’s introductory remarks about fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers of our state were a bit rich considering her pattern of irresponsible personal spending with no accountability or transparency.”

Last week, Haugaard reminded South Dakotans of Noem’s pattern of spending taxpayer dollars on pricey purchases. He has called on her to pay the taxpayers back for the sauna she recently purchased and had installed in the Governor’s residence at taxpayer expense.

Steve Haugaard is the state representative for House District 10 and former Speaker of the House. He is running to replace Kristi Noem as governor of the great state of South Dakota. More about Steve can be found at his website, www.stevehaugaard.com.

###

It took them a day to come up with this?

South Dakota News Watch is noting this evening that a recent poll shows good news for Governor Kristi Noem as her level of support from South Dakotans is increasing in comparison to last year. And bad news for those who have aspirations to run against her:

The poll of 500 registered voters conducted in late October showed that a majority of South Dakotans support the governor’s performance, with an average of 61.2% of respondents strongly or somewhat in approval of her performance across five topic areas

and..

Noem’s performance ratings in the October 2021 poll rose in comparison with a similar News Watch/Chiesman Center poll conducted in October 2020, near the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Dakota. At that time, 53.8% of respondents overall were strongly or somewhat approving of Noem’s performance, while 40.9% were strongly or somewhat disapproving.

and..

Wiltse said the apparent effort by Haugaard to label Noem as not conservative enough is unlikely to help him prevail in the GOP primary.

Read the entire story right here.

As Governor Noem’s popularity rises with more people viewing her as being gubernatorial, it makes it that much tougher of an uphill slog for those who think they can run against her. Especially when she’s playing on a field that few can touch.

And let’s be realistic. Governor Noem on the stump in front of a crowd is tough to compete against. She’s one of the best campaigners that I’ve ever seen.

Democrats can’t find someone who thinks they can compete at this point. Steve Haugaard is nice enough, but is not what I would consider charismatic. You also have Lora Hubbel running who is just plain awful, but I don’t think we’ll see her on the ballot.

I think the poll and the level of competition illustrates that the ship has sailed at this point, with Governor Noem firmly at the wheel.  And those who wanted to drive the boat are still on the docks wondering what happened.

Looks like an improvement over last week’s numbers in the latest update on COVID hospitalizations from Sanford Health.

We’re down 20 hospitalized, 1 in the ICU, and 16 on ventilators from the last report across the 22 Sanford Health owned hospitals they’re using in their calculations.

Since the last report, I did go get my flu shot, so hopefully I don’t have to worry about that. Although I’ve got another week & 1/2 before I can get a COVID booster.

Stay healthy.

South Dakota Employers to White House: Vaccine Mandates Will Cause Serious Workforce Problems

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) communicated to President Biden serious employer concerns with the President’s vaccine mandates. During a series of roundtables with South Dakota businesses, several concerns were highlighted regarding workforce participation, retention, and the ability to meet goals when faced with vaccination mandates.

“Multiple businesses have stated that since the mandate’s announcement, they have experienced issues hiring consultants, subcontractors, and fully remote workers because such individuals do not want to be subject to mandatory vaccination,” said Johnson.“Many employers who contract with the federal government rely on subcontractor labor, including Quinn Construction in Rapid City, South Dakota. Regretfully, Quinn Construction will likely be forced to pass on upcoming Ellsworth Air Force Base bids due to their inability to find the workers necessary to complete the projects.

“Another large DoD contractor based in South Dakota expressed their view that the government is “pushing away” the best talent our nation has to offer from working towards the national security of our federal government.”

Johnson sought clarification on behalf of the businesses in South Dakota including plans to counter decreased labor participation because of the mandate, the definition of “fully vaccinated,” and test-out options.

The full letter can be found here or below:

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Throughout the past few weeks, I hosted a series of roundtable discussions with several business leaders in South Dakota to hear their concerns with your administration’s vaccine mandates. I write to share the perspectives I gathered from those discussions and to ask for clarification on questions many private businesses and federal contractors are struggling with nationwide.

To be clear, I do not support the mandates. While I believe in the vaccine, I also believe in a limited federal government. The vaccine is safe and effective, but a mandate at the federal level raises serious constitutional, ethical, and practical concerns.

First and foremost, the main concern I heard from employers is the effect on workforce participation the mandate will have on both retaining current employees and hiring new talent. A mining and mineral processing facility in Rapid City, South Dakota, stated their employees are “more anti-mandate than anti-vaccine.” Multiple businesses have stated that since the mandate’s announcement, they have experienced issues hiring consultants, subcontractors, and fully remote workers because such individuals do not want to be subject to mandatory vaccination. Many employers who contract with the federal government rely on subcontractor labor, including Quinn Construction in Rapid City, South Dakota. Regretfully, Quinn Construction will likely be forced to pass on upcoming Ellsworth Air Force Base bids due to their inability to find the workers necessary to complete the projects.

For LaCreek Development, a general contractor in Martin, South Dakota, Native Americans make up about 85 percent of their employees. Due, in part, to a historic distrust of the federal government, the vaccination rate within the Oglala Sioux Tribe is 41 percent. “There is a lot of fear” of the vaccine, and LaCreek has seen willingness to work for federal projects sharply decline. This mandate will have devastating effects on employment in predominately Native areas.

Contractors in the energy and defense sectors provide vital services for the federal government – services that would pose major national security threats if interrupted. Businesses such as East River Electric, a wholesale power supply cooperative in eastern South Dakota, rely on highly specialized employees to run their transmission system along with their power suppliers who operate generating facilities. These employees throughout the power delivery system have decades of experience that would take many months to replace. The energy services that utility companies throughout South Dakota provide are essential. If they are not adequately staffed, the reliability of the United States’ power grid would be at stake.

Black Hills Ammunition in Rapid City, South Dakota provides special operations ammunition to the Department of Defense (DoD). Due to the mandate, it will be “difficult for [them] to meet [their] goals as a federal contractor” if they must let workers go for being unvaccinated. Their ammunition product is “something that the government needs, but if [they] don’t have enough people, it will be difficult to make those contracts.” Another large DoD contractor based in South Dakota expressed their view that the government is “pushing away” the best talent our nation has to offer from working towards the national security of our federal government.

Additionally, the leaders I spoke with shared they felt the burden was placed on them as employers to implement the mandate. A large production facility in Aberdeen, South Dakota, is struggling with the collection and tracking of employee vaccination status. A construction company in Rapid City, South Dakota, feels “to put [this burden] on the employers is a really bitter pill.” Black Hills Ammunition also feels conflicted, stating they feel uncomfortable the federal government is forcing workers into being dishonest and “pushing workers into [claiming] a religious objection” who in reality simply wish to not be vaccinated. Quinn Construction is struggling with the bilateral agreements from the federal government they are expected to sign; “it’s very hard to sign something that says we will agree to whatever you say in the future.”

Finally, many businesses expressed they find a vaccine mandate unnecessary to keep their employees safe. Each business leader I spoke with detailed the many ways they kept their folks safe during the pandemic, including mask mandates, physical distancing, expanded sick days, even hosting vaccine clinics at their places of work. An electric and natural gas provider in South Dakota saw no more than three reported transmissions of COVID-19 in the workplace throughout the past 21 months. Another large DoD contractor in South Dakota never had to shut down operations during the pandemic and stated “the directive from the government did not add anything new to what we were doing” to keep employees safe.

There remain several unanswered questions, and I respectfully request clarification on the following from your administration within the next 30 days:

• Can you ensure our national security will not be at risk due to the ramifications of your mandate?
• What is your plan to counter the unavoidable decreased labor participation effects of your mandate?
• Please clarify the scope of the federal contractor mandate as it regards “spillover”:
  • If one employee independently participates in a contract, is the rest of their office now covered by the mandate? If a federal contractor business shares an office building with a non-contracted business, are they now covered?
• Please clarify the definition of fully vaccinated.
  • Are those possessing antibodies from a previous infection considered “fully vaccinated”?
  • Are booster shots required to be considered “fully vaccinated”?
• Will you consider adding a test-out option for federal contractors, similar to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Emergency Temporary Standard?
• Please clarify what directives employers should follow when state law conflicts with federal law as it relates to your vaccine mandate.

Our country is facing serious domestic issues: the supply chain crisis, record-low workforce participation rates, and a great sense of division between everyday Americans. This mandate will only make these issues worse. I implore you to consider the items outlined above, and I look forward to hearing answers to the questions raised.

Sincerely,

Dusty Johnson
Member of Congress

###