This interview originally aired on In the Moment on SDPB Radio.
After three weeks without a leader, the U.S. House of Representatives has a new speaker.
Rep. Dusty Johnson joins In the Moment for an update on the House's priorities and spending.
Plus, we ask about Speaker Mike Johnson's political past and future.
____________________________________________________________
The following transcript was auto-generated.
Lori Walsh:
Well, for three weeks, the US House of Representatives went without a speaker. That was the longest stretch of time the House had been officially leaderless for 61 years. We've checked in with Rep. Dusty Johnson throughout the turmoil, and he returns now.
He's on the phone to talk about the election of Speaker Mike Johnson along with the look at what's next. Congressman Johnson, welcome back to In the Moment. Thanks for being here.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Lori Walsh:
I want to start with the aid package for Israel that the House approved yesterday. So, the last time you talked, you reminded all South Dakotans that America gets to the right place but often in the most messiest of paths.
So, this $14.5 billion military aid package for Israel, do you think it's the right place or is it a step along the messy path?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
I think it's probably a step along the messy path. The Senate and the White House have indicated they don't like the pay for, and what that means is because we're $33 trillion in debt, House Republicans have a pretty strong commitment to if we're going to spend money, we got to find some other place to cut or some way to generate the revenue.
We chose to reduce the amount of new money going to the IRS. And the White House doesn't like that pay for, but I think the more important thing for House Republicans is, well, okay, but let's talk about a pay for. Clearly, we really do need to help Israel. I think $14 billion is the right number. I think it's pretty targeted, but this money doesn't grow on trees.
If the White House has a better pay for they're interested in, I think we're all ears.
Lori Walsh:
So the Senate says they're not going to take it up. Chuck Schumer said it was stunningly unserious. You've been accused of not understanding the urgency of an aid package for Israel, but we know from talking to you before how important the fiscal responsibility for the United States is going forward.
Do you think that this departure from the norm of getting an aid package through in an emergency, but yet tying it to some kind of other pay cut, do you think that's the right direction?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Yeah, I would just observe that it is odd that the idea that something should be paid for, it can be labeled as stunningly unserious. I mean, it's not hard to imagine that we could do it, right? There are lots of pots of money within the federal government that I think we should be willing to divert for when we've got a problem. That happens to a lot of us, right?
I had to put four new tires on my car last week. That was a little unexpected, and I didn't go down to the bank to get a loan for that. Instead, I had to rearrange some family finances and make sure that we took care of business and dealt with the urgent and the important, which tires are. And I think Israel is. And I think I'm always a little bemused that the Senate can criticize the House's work product when the Senate hasn't done their own work product. This is not as though Chuck Schumer has passed this perfect, beautiful bill that is just waiting for action over here. I mean, they literally haven't done anything, but they're pretty good at criticizing when we do something.
Lori Walsh:
This idea that the cuts to the IRS would actually cost more money, it's more expensive according to the Congressional Budget Office because you're losing revenue from tax collections, Republicans have pushed back against that. What's your stance?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
If the money that was going to the IRS was better targeted, I think would have a lot more support among Republicans. I do think there are plenty of tax cheats we're not catching, and we do want to catch tax cheats. People should be paying their fair share. Most studies that I have read from entities outside the federal government indicate that technology is going to play a much bigger role there than more IRS agents. The Biden administration request wasn't for 87,000 IRS agents. That's been a Republican talking point that I think has been a little overblown, but it was a lot of human power.
And I think in that way it was really misallocated and I think gave rise to some fears that if the way you catch rich tax cheats is through technology, then what's all this human power for? And some thought that it was maybe going to actually put a burden on more middle-class tax returns where technology is not quite as good as sniffing out problems, but that humans can churn through these audits. You do need humans to do the audits. And because the money doesn't go to technology, I think there is some open question about whether or not it would actually generate as much new tax revenue as a different approach.
And so, I do doubt that cutting $14 billion from the IRS would actually cost us an additional $15 billion or whatever the CBO says. I think they're off base on that.
Lori Walsh:
$12.5 billion is what I have marked down. So, back to this sense of urgency because what you described is incredibly nuanced. It's obviously what needs to be discussed about whether this money for the IRS is targeted. Well, that sounds like a long debate to me. And then there's this military aid package to Israel, which meanwhile is not going through. Do you understand the sense of urgency? If you could address that, please.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Yes, of course. And I do think it's disappointing that the Senate hasn't acted. I mean, if they didn't like what we did the other day, they could have taken up our bill, put in a different pay for and sent it back and we could have voted on it today. That's not really, I guess, how they're inclined to do business.
And we're not trying to have this debate about the IRS now. We've been having this debate on the IRS for three years or something, two years. I think that might've been a part of the Inflation Reduction Act. So maybe that was just over 18 or 20 months ago. And so, this is not some new issue. Republicans have long held that those dollars could be better targeted, and I think Israel is a much better place to target them.
Lori Walsh:
So, that would bring to the point that people are making that if you've been talking about this a long time that you're really using... You're politicizing help for Israel, making Democrats vote against it, for example, or what have you.
Is that a fair assessment that this has become more political? Something that's been traditionally nonpartisan has become politicized and it's time to dredge up an issue that you know you can't agree on and tie it to something that everybody would normally vote together on?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Well, there were Democrats that voted for it. Now, not 100, but somewhere between a dozen and two dozen. And so, they didn't, I think, imagine that we were too politicizing an issue. And I think the bigger question is, okay, if this isn't the right pay for. I mean, I'm not saying this is the plan. I'm saying it's a plan, and of course, we need to help Israel, but we also have a clear and present danger from a government that is drifting ever closer to insolvency. I think the hour is later than most Americans realize. And I guess if trying to have a conversation about paying for government spending as you're putting $14 billion out the door is a problem, then I think we're going to continue to have— I mean, I think that's going to continue to be a real value of the Republican House.
Lori Walsh:
Let's talk about that a little bit, especially in the context of Speaker Mike Johnson. We all know he took a central role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. How do you see that impacting his leadership in the House going forward?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
I think when people tried to talk about 2020, he really said, "Hey, listen, we need to focus on the future. We've got a government shutdown that's happening in 15 days." So, it's not the kind of thing that he's got religion on week in and week out. He, I think, has been given a lot more.
I think in an attempt to brand him early, people have tried to call him this mastermind of the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. I mean, the only thing that I saw him having leadership on in a big way was an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court. I think it was a case that Texas had calling into question how much flexibility state executives have to change election law, in essence, without any blessing from state legislatures.
And by the way, that's a legitimate legal question. I mean, the Supreme Court took it up because it's a legitimate legal question. Mike Johnson was able to get more than 100 members of Congress to sign on to that friend of the court brief. I did not sign on to it. I did not agree with his constitutional interpretation, but it was not a ridiculous interpretation.
Again, I think reasonable people can disagree about this area where Article I language and Article III language don't quite mesh perfectly. I think they can disagree about where they think that leaves us. He is really focused on the future and he doesn't talk about the 2020 election really ever.
Lori Walsh:
All right, so one more thought. I want you to address a voter specifically in South Dakota. I'm sure we'll be talking about Speaker Johnson in the future and your work with him. He has in the past also written editorials calling homosexuality inherently unnatural, harmful and costly. He's called the LGBTQ community deviants and said same-sex marriage could pretty much doom the republic.
So, speak to your constituents in South Dakota who are part of the LGBTQ community and help them understand what you see in the weeks ahead when some of these issues arise and how you will represent them.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
First off, obviously, we're all called to treat everybody with respect, and I have very little appetite for people who I think use dehumanizing language to talk about anybody unless they're engaged in acts of violence. And I don't know, with all these quotes, how old some of them are from Mike Johnson. I would tell you he is somebody that treats—
Lori Walsh:
2004. Yeah, 2004.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
—everyone with civil— I'm sorry, go ahead, Lori.
Lori Walsh:
2004. Some of them are from that era.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Yeah. So, if you're talking 20 years ago, I mean, I am open to being fact-checked because it's not like I have a sheet in front of me. But I mean, 20 years ago, Joe Biden was opposed to gay marriage. I mean, 20 years ago, Barack Obama was opposed to gay marriage. 20 years ago, Hillary Clinton was opposed to gay marriage.
Now, Mike Johnson is still not a proponent of a gay marriage, to my understanding. But I think we want to take care before we use 18- or 20-year-old quotes to try to give us a sense of where is somebody's heart today in how to treat people because this has been an issue where, obviously, our country's seen some pretty dramatic changes.
Lori Walsh:
Directly to those constituents in South Dakota, where is your heart at today before some of these issues arise fresh?
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Well, gay marriage is the law of the land. The Supreme Court has made that clear. I find it impossible to imagine that's going to change anytime. It's certainly not something that I'm pushing to have changed.
I do think when Congress last year attempted to deal with this issue, we simply didn't provide enough protections for people's deeply held religious views. I know we can do that. I mean, I know we're grown-up and mature enough to say, how do we respect people who are gay, respect their decision and their freedom, while at the same time not infringing on people's deeply held religious views?
Now, let's be clear, that bill that passed the House, passed the Senate and was signed into law, didn't change anything. It did not change a single thing because gay marriage is the law of the land. And frankly, a more robust version of gay marriage is the law of the land because of the Supreme Court decision. But I do think we've got to be willing, I think, to find a middle ground in respecting people's views. And I don't think the legislation last year did that.
Lori Walsh:
We're going to leave it here for now. Rep. Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, we thank you so much for your time.
Rep. Dusty Johnson:
Thanks for having me, Lori.
