Dusty Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Madam Speaker, I serve on the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and we have heard expert after expert talk to us about the Chinese Government working to get coercive economic power over our country and, frankly, every other country in the world, and one of the primary tools of that push for coercive economic power is data. One real focus of this bill before us is that it makes it harder for the Chinese Communist Party to be able to use the Shanghai Shipping Exchange or the LOGINK platform to be able to gather up all of this exquisite data about the world's supply chains and shipping information and have it be used against our country and others. This also builds upon the strong bipartisan track record that Mr. Menendez spoke of, and it will make for a fuller and fairer supply chain and ocean shipping environment. Madam Speaker, I would urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1836, my bill with Mr. Garamendi, who has been a partner in this work for years. This bill builds upon our work from last Congress to improve our maritime supply chain. There are three main goals of this bill that I would like to highlight. First, our bill seeks to get tough on China. It protects U.S. ports and shippers from the influence of the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, by first banning LOGINK and other state-sponsored logistics software. Second, it establishes a formal process to report complaints against shipping exchanges like the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. They will be able to make those reports to the Federal Maritime Commission for investigation. Third, the bill directs the U.S. DOT to contract an independent auditor to examine the influence of the People's Republic of China on the business practices of the Shanghai Shipping Exchange and report to Congress. The second major thrust of this bill is that it will help streamline data sharing throughout the supply chain. It requires the FMC to work with industry experts to set a new data standard for maritime freight logistics including their ability to contract with an expert third party to develop a new standard, if needed. Finally, our bill enacts general good government policies. It prohibits the FMC from requiring ocean carriers to report duplicative information that is already reported to other Federal agencies. As I noted at the top of my comments, I do thank my partner, Mr. Garamendi. He and I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and have really had a passion for the ocean supply chain. A lot of people wonder why somebody in a landlocked State like South Dakota would care so much about maritime law. The reality is that 60 percent of South Dakota soybeans are exported overseas. South Dakota exports $7 billion a year of manufactured and agricultural goods. Madam Speaker, that is $7,700 a year for every single South Dakotan. Clearly, maritime law matters. Clearly, supply chains matter, and clearly, the Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act matters. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1836.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1836) to amend title 46, United States Code, to make technical corrections with respect to ocean shipping authorities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. As we encourage Federal employees to return to an in-person working posture, at those times when it is appropriate, it is crucial that we ensure that they are coming back to a safe work environment. I urge support of H.R. 6261 so we can ultimately address the unsafe working conditions deterring employees from returning to work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer).

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Periodically, we get 1,000-page bills or 2,000-page bills or 4,000- page bills that we debate on this floor. It can be a little hard for the people in the gallery and the people at home to make sense of what we are doing. This bill is not that. This excellent piece of legislation from Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer fits on a single piece of paper. She and I were talking about that, Mr. Speaker, before we began debate on this bill, about how much good wisdom is packed into a single page. We will probably talk about the merits of this legislation for longer than it would take us to read the entirety of the bill, but it is just that good. The Impact of Crime on Public Building Usage Act of 2023, which is this piece of paper, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6261, directs the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, to examine how crime in and around public buildings affects building usage, how it affects how workers might commute to the office, and how it might impose any additional costs to maintain those public buildings. In 2020, Mr. Speaker, we saw crime rates spike across the country. In many of the downtown areas in many of our States, areas that used to be bustling with workers became near ghost towns that changed the crime profile in many of those areas, to be sure. We are in a little bit different era today, and now we have differing, conflicting data community by community. In some, crime rates are continuing to go up. In some, they are going down. In some, the data might differ between property crimes and violent crimes. One thing we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that, of course, the crime that exists can continue to have an impact--a perhaps profound impact--on how we use our Federal buildings. I will just give you one example, Mr. Speaker, from perhaps 6 months ago. In August 2023, employees who worked in a Federal building in San Francisco were told not to come to work because of safety concerns. These weren't safety concerns related to an earthquake or to a blizzard, an occurrence that we might experience at Federal buildings in South Dakota but not in San Francisco. No, those weren't the safety concerns. They weren't weather related. They were crime related. It seems like, as good managers, we would want to better understand that issue and what we can do to have it be less common in the future. It is particularly true as we work to bring employees back to the office. We know there is study after study that shows that people working in close physical proximity can share real benefits. Remote work has benefits, too, but as we talk to employees about coming back to the office in those times and in those places where it makes sense, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that their public safety is well cared for--not just when they are in the building, but when they are on their way to or from work as well. I thank the bill's sponsor, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez- DeRemer). She has exhibited real leadership on this legislation. She has shown real advocacy to make sure that Federal employees are able to return safely to Federal office buildings and that, while they are there, they are effective and efficient. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Washington, DC, March 4, 2024. Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Graves: Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability agrees to be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6261, the Impact of Crime on Public Building Usage Act of 2023, so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House Floor. I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 6261 at this time, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability should be appropriately consulted and involved on this or similar legislation as it moves forward. I support your effort to represent the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on the conference committee if a conference on the bill becomes necessary. As discussed, I appreciate your inclusion of a copy of our exchange of letters on this bill in the bill report filed by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and in the Congressional Record during House floor consideration thereof. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this bill and look forward to future opportunities to work together on matters of shared jurisdiction. Sincerely, James Comer, Chairman.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 6261.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6261) to direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on the impact of crime on public building usage, and for other purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. So often our attention is pulled to the massive issues, the sexy fights that sometimes divide this Chamber. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, of course, is not that. It is commonsense legislation. It is the kind of meat and potatoes, blocking and tackling legislation that so many Americans, I think, are hungry for. It is a data-driven proposal. We heard from Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer that 17 of 24 buildings in the study that she cited were dramatically underutilized. This is an opportunity for good managers within the GSA and good managers within Congress to use the data that her bill would provide to make better decisions. What a delightful outcome that would be. As we have discussed, this bill would increase transparency, strengthen accountability, assist the committee in its oversight of Federal space utilization, and help us increase safety at our public buildings. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer).

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the bill's sponsor, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer), for her leadership on H.R. 6260, the FOCUS Act. The gentlewoman is a remarkable Member of Congress. She is hardworking, diligent, and smart as a whip. H.R. 6260 is just one of the many examples of her leadership that she has blessed the 118th with. Specifically, the FOCUS Act increases transparency and oversight. It does that by implementing a number of measures that increase the information that the General Services Administration provides to Congress that is going to give us a better opportunity to strengthen oversight of Federal space and public building projects. More specifically, this bill would ensure Congress is notified if the costs for authorized GSA projects change by more than 5 percent. We have all seen, I suspect, outside of government how often cost overruns have been happening in the broader economy and what kind of costs and confusion they can impose. This bill would help us get better data on what is going on with government projects, and it would require GSA to include in its new project proposals more details on space utilization rates and ensures GSA's tenant agencies have information on other agencies nearby to support consolidation of space. I think this has taken on renewed importance as we have seen additional studies about the low occupancy rates that we continue to see within a number of GSA-managed buildings. This bill would also require GSA to collect data and report on criminal activity that may be impacting public safety in and around public buildings. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6260, as amended.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6260) to provide for certain reviews of the use and safety of Federal buildings, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the South Dakota State University Jackrabbits football team on their second straight win in the Division I Football Championship Subdivision title. SDSU recently defeated the University of Montana Grizzlies 23-3 to secure the national title win. This season, the Jackrabbits finished undefeated, winning all 15 of their games. Their undefeated season and ability to reach the playoffs for the last 12 seasons shows the players and coaching staff's dedication to success in the sport. Under the leadership of first-year head coach Jimmy Rogers, the team finished with one of the best FCS defenses of the season and an offense that often outscored opponents by over 28 points on average. I congratulate the team for all their hard work this season and wish them luck as they prepare for another exceptional season this year.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 635.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, to Maverick Kemp, because we love his parents, his birth on October 21 was much celebrated in our office. He is a cute little guy, cuter than most babies even. His mother, Jazmine, is a dear friend, a trusted adviser, and a brilliant coworker. She spent 5 years working with me in service to this country, and what a blessing she has been. Now, the other children of our office, A.J. and Max, Gabby, Dakota and Drew, Wyatt and Gavin, Stevie and Woodrow, would tell him that it isn't always easy to have a parent in this line of work. I know that he will understand it is work worth doing. We are grateful that Jazmine and all of the parents of our office choose to serve, and we are very happy that Maverick is here.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, so often around here, we vote on half measures, narrow bills that, at best, address one issue in only a modest way. This is not that bill. This is an opportunity in one vote to shut the border, to keep the government open, and to reduce spending. The five conservative leaders who, with me, crafted this proposal knew that bold action was needed. Crisis one: We are $33 trillion in debt. That is pushing us toward insolvency. That number has grown by 50 percent in just the last 4 years. This bill puts us back on the right track and cuts billions of spending, even just in the next month. Two, a shutdown accomplishes nothing. It does not save a nickel. In fact, it costs the American taxpayers billions. This stopgap funding measure makes sure our government stays open. Three, 1.8 million illegal crossings at our southern border is unacceptable. This bill puts into place the policies that we know work to secure our border. Mr. Speaker, I will admit to not understanding fully those who oppose this bill. I do not understand why anyone would choose open borders over an open government. Mr. Speaker, we are here to solve problems. Chaos is not a legislative strategy. In a few moments, I will vote to keep the government open, to cut spending, and to secure our border. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Madam Speaker, our debt, our deficit, and our spending are indefensible. Three years ago, our national debt was $23 trillion, a staggering sum by any measure. Since then, it has grown by 50 percent to $33 trillion. We have heard allegations tonight from one side of the Chamber that everybody deserves blame for that crisis, so let me be very clear. During that time, I voted against $13 trillion in spending. Nevertheless, we find ourselves at a tipping point. In the last 10 years, we have spent $3 trillion just on interest on the debt. In the next 10 years, we won't spend $3 trillion on interest, we will spend $10 trillion. For that money, our country gets nothing. No sailor, no soldier, no safety net. We get nothing. Making matters worse, in 7 years, Medicare is insolvent and in 10 years, Social Security is insolvent. We must get our fiscal house in order. Now, the appropriations bills before us move us in that direction. They do so through real, robust, and significant cuts, billions of dollars in cuts. Are the bills perfect? No. Do I support every single cut in every single bill? No. Can we balance the budget through nondefense discretionary cuts alone? No. To be honest, these bills will not solve all that ails us, but they are a critically important step toward stopping this runaway train. Business as usual, Madam Speaker, is unacceptable. A ``yes'' vote acknowledges that and moves us in the right direction.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, in December 1890, Chief Spotted Elk and his band of Lakota, including many women and children, were moving from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the reservation, to the Pine Ridge Reservation. As was mentioned, they were stopped by the Army's 7th Cavalry, and they were forced to make camp at Wounded Knee Creek in South Dakota. The next morning, on December 29, the 7th Cavalry attempted to disarm the Lakota. A struggle ensued, a shot rang out, and before long, the 7th Cavalry was opening fire on the Lakota. Almost all of them were unarmed. As was mentioned earlier, most were women and children. More than 300 noncombatants were killed. Mr. Speaker, this was a massacre. Too many think of Wounded Knee as something that happened in the long ago past and in a faraway place. The inaccuracy of that view was driven home to me in June when I went to the site, and I spoke to the descendants of Wounded Knee. There, I sat at length with an elder whose grandmother survived that day. He grew up hearing from her own voice of the fear, the violence, and the tragedy of that day. Mr. Speaker, this was not a history book. This was his grandmother. Close by, at St. John's Church, I looked at the site where the wounded and the dying were taken. The floorboards of that church are still stained with their blood. These are real people. These are real places. These are not ancient tales of a distant land. Our Nation has struggled with how best to remember, to mourn that terrible day. On the 100th anniversary of Wounded Knee, this body issued a formal apology and expressed deep regret for the actions of that day. That is, obviously, altogether appropriate, although on its own it is woefully insufficient. Last year, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe exercised tremendous leadership by coming together to purchase the 40 acres surrounding this site, an area that was mentioned was site to just an old trading post. The management of that site was not an appropriate memory of those who had died that day. This bill, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act, would place those 40 acres into restricted fee status; in essence, placing them into trust for the Tribes. That would provide the Tribes additional tools that they could use to better protect this sacred land. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the leadership of the Tribal leaders involved: firstly, President Frank Star Comes Out, who graces our body with his presence in this Chamber today, but also Chairman Ryman LeBeau, former President Kevin Killer, and former Chairman Harold Frazier. We have spent months working together along with committee staff and the Department of the Interior to craft this important legislation. My colleagues, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this bill. Wounded Knee is sacred ground. It has been hallowed by the blood of innocent women and children. It deserves protection. This act can give the Tribes, the descendants of those who died, the tools they need to do just that.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, our Nation has always had a national commitment to infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, that has been true whether it has been the interstate highway system, universal telephone service, or rural electrification. We don't ask each rural county to pay exclusively for their portion of the interstate or high voltage transmission line that resides within their county borders. That, sir, would be absurd. These are assets with national benefit. Now, that is the same wisdom, thankfully, that we apply to our national aviation infrastructure. That does not mean an airport everywhere, of course; not any more than it means an interstate everywhere. It does mean a national commitment to having the essential infrastructure necessary to bind together 50 States into one unified America. This amendment destroys that national commitment to infrastructure and to essential air service. It is misguided, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I will close, Mr. Chair, by noting this: There may be some airports within an hour, but there are many, including in South Dakota, that are 2 hours or 3 hours away from these hubs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chair, I would inquire how much time remains in opposition.

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).