Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Arctic is fast becoming the 21st-century version of the Northwest Passage. Just four years ago, two German ships followed a Russian icebreaker to complete the first commercial shipment across the Arctic. Last year, with the warmest Arctic summer on record, 46 ships made the crossing. An active and well-maintained icebreaker fleet is a key part of our country's responsibility as an Arctic nation. As Ranking Member of the Coast Guard subcommittee in the 112th Congress, I had the privilege to work with Representative LoBiondo, who was the Chairman at that time. We agreed it was time for the Coast Guard to make a decision about how to move forward with its icebreaker fleet. In the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill, we asked the agency to look at the business case for reactivating the Polar Sea, which is currently docked in Seattle. That analysis showed that for about $100 million, we could have a functioning Polar Sea, which is about one-tenth the price tag for a brand new icebreaker. In my view that is a bargain. However, the Coast Guard still has not come to a conclusion about what to do with the Polar Sea. Instead, it is currently sitting in cold storage in Seattle. Every day the Polar Sea sits without maintenance it loses value. The bill before us would require the Coast Guard to use the analysis Representative LoBiondo and I requested and make a decision about the Polar Sea. I was pleased to hear Coast Guard Admiral Papp talk about reactivation of the Polar Sea in a positive light during a subcommittee hearing last week. I believe the right course of action is to reactivate the Polar Sea. But that decision needs to be made soon. The Coast Guard also needs to start moving on the next generation of icebreakers. I understand that the intent of this legislation is to encourage the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation and other interested agencies to partner with the Coast Guard in building a new fleet of icebreakers. However, I am concerned that by tying the Coast Guard's hands until those agencies fully engage in this process, we may be delaying much needed progress towards building a new icebreaker. That's why I am pleased that Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Garamendi included some changes I requested to the icebreaker language in this bill to ensure that we do not hinder what little progress is being made on icebreakers today. I hope we can continue to work together to ensure our country meets its responsibilities as an Arctic nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1459. Exactly one year ago yesterday, the President designated 970 acres of land in my district as the San Juan National Monument. This designation came after years of grassroots work and outreach to create a consensus plan to protect these critically important areas. It came only because Congress failed to act on that consensus. I know, because I tried to get Congress to act and it didn't happen. In both the 112th and 113th Congress, I introduced legislation that would have protected these lands in a nearly identical way to the National Monument designation. Unfortunately, those bills stalled because of ideological opposition to conservation. In the part of the country I represent, people know that conservation isn't just good for the environment, it's good for business. The San Juans and the water around them are home to diverse wildlife from the Island Marble Butterfly to the Southern Resident Killer Whales. Because of that diversity, they are an economic engine for Northwest Washington that attracts thousands of tourists each year. Every year, fishermen, hunters, tourists, boaters, hikers, snowboarders, and tourists spend millions throughout my state. They come for the natural beauty and abundant outdoor activities we have to offer. If we do not protect those resources, we lose that business. For many rural areas, outdoor recreation is the driver of the economy. Unfortunately, this Congress has handcuffed itself when it comes to protecting public lands. And this legislation would handcuff the President and prevent him from providing that protection. I suppose the idea is that the President should follow our bad example. I disagree with that. Instead of stopping the President from doing his job, we should start doing ours.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to again ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan. We have worked hard to get it here quickly, and we appreciate people supporting this. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3578. I want to thank Chairman LoBiondo for bringing this issue to the attention of the committee and for working hard to bring it to the floor so quickly. This bill would require the Federal Aviation Administration to go through a rulemaking process if it chooses to propose and implement new pilot medical certification requirements for sleep apnea. Under current law, in order for a pilot to be certificated, every pilot is screened by an aviation medical examiner to ensure he is safe and capable of piloting an aircraft. If a pilot is diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea or with any other disqualifying medical condition, that pilot must obtain a ``special issuance'' medical certificate from the FAA to keep flying. Last November, the FAA abruptly announced changes to the medical certification process as it pertains only to sleep apnea. The new policy would require all airmen with a body mass index, or BMI, of 40 or more to undergo new testing and evaluation requirements for obstructive sleep apnea in order to maintain their medical certificates. General aviation groups and pilot unions have raised concerns that the FAA's proposed policy changes could impose significant undue costs on thousands of airmen without an adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the relative safety merits of these new requirements. H.R. 3578 would ensure transparency and would require the FAA to initiate a rulemaking if it chooses to implement a new pilot medical certification requirement for sleep apnea. This bill would not prohibit the FAA from implementing new medical certification requirements, but the rulemaking process will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to comment on any proposed changes. So I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3578. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 2642, the Farm Bill. Section 12313 of this legislation addresses an issue that should not go unnoticed, and I would like to make its intent clear. In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2541, the Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act, introduced by Representative Herrera Beutler. The stated intent of this legislation was to return Clean Water Act permitting of silvicultural operations around forest roads to the same standards that applied before recent court decisions created uncertainty about which standards should be used. Before court actions, a Clean Water Act permit was not required for nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, or road use, construction, and maintenance. Permits were only required for activities that involved rock crushing, gravel washing, log sawing and log storage. That standard has worked for many years, and I support continuing that standard. However, as originally written, H.R. 2541 could have created legal ambiguity on what should be covered with a Clean Water Act permit. I introduced an amendment to H.R. 2541 in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee clarifying that activities exempt from permitting are limited to the silvicultural activities specified in the bill, and not all silvicultural activities. The language I sponsored and set forth as an amendment of this bill is generally the same as that in Section 12313 of the Farm Bill. Thankfully, the Farm Bill addresses this issue without ambiguity. Put simply, those activities which required a Clean Water Act permit in the past should continue to do so. Those which did not should continue to be exempt. I appreciate Representative Herrera Beutler's efforts on this issue and I am pleased that this issue has been addressed without ambiguity.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I know how important it is to end the shutdown of the FAA, but I do have to ask the question, if safety were so important, why wasn't this the first bill brought to the floor in this piecemeal approach that the Republican side has taken? Now, look. A safe and efficient aviation system isn't just good for travelers; it's the lifeblood of the economy where I come from. In our State, 131,000 people across over 1,200 companies work in the aerospace industry, but these folks don't just depend on the FAA. Is it safety to say that police departments that need Federal grants to put cops on the beat should have to wait? Is it safety to say that our functioning transit systems have to wait for grants to make the transit systems more safe? Is it safety to say that the EPA can't issue grants in my district or around the country to make sure that we have safe and clean drinking water? This bill funds none of these priorities. We should not be opening just parts of the government to serve just some of the people. We should open the entire government for all Americans. The Republican solution to the Republican shutdown, this piecemeal approach picking winners and picking losers, is no solution at all. It's great that this House wants to make sure that air travel is safe, but why should we stop there? What about safety on our highways? In the last 10 days, there have been three major, fatal transportation accidents across this country. A plane crashed in Santa Monica, California, killing four; a bus crashed in Tennessee, killing eight and injuring another 14; and less than a mile from this building, one person died and two others were injured during a Metro repair accident this week. But the National Transportation Safety Board can't investigate because this Congress sent the investigators home on furlough. Let's end this piecemeal approach and move on to a vote on a Senate bill that opens all of the government for all Americans. If it's about safety, let's do it that way. This continued unwillingness to allow one vote--just one vote--to open the government for all Americans and not just some needs to stop. One bill, one vote for all Americans.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Ranking Member Slaughter's motion to call up the SAFE Bridges Act. In May, a portion of a bridge on Interstate 5 in my district collapsed into the Skagit River. Like most of my constituents, I've driven over that bridge hundreds of times. The fact that no one died when it collapsed was a blessing, but not everyone has been so lucky. My colleagues will remember in 2007 when a bridge spanning the Mississippi River in Minneapolis crashed down during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145. So, today, I want to ask my colleagues a very simple question: Should not Americans be able to drive across a highway bridge with the reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath them? There are 67,000 bridges in our country that are rated structurally deficient--67,000 bridges. When those bridges fall, it isn't just the unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. Whole economies that rely on safe and efficient transportation suffer. The I-5 bridge across the Skagit River doesn't just connect Burlington and Mount Vernon. It connects the entire west coast and carries millions of dollars' worth of trade every day between Canada and the U.S. Here's the good news: we know how to build safe bridges. There are thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives today to building good structures that don't fall down, but we need to pay for them. We need to maintain our bridges until they're old and replace them when we need to. We can't wait for them to crumble into the water below. In light of this obvious need, how much has this Congress done to improve bridge safety or invest in infrastructure? Mr. Speaker, that was the sound of how much congressional action has been taken--nothing. Just yesterday, house leadership pulled the Transportation appropriations bill because they couldn't find enough Republicans to support its draconian cuts. Instead of rushing home, we should take up the SAFE Bridges Act introduced by Mr. Rahall to immediately invest in bridges. Rather than repealing ObamaCare for the 40th time this Congress, we should invest in our infrastructure for the first time. If you think your constituents should be able to drive over a bridge without wondering whether it will crumble beneath them, then this Congress must act on robust transportation funding. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a State-by-State funding table under the SAFE Bridges Act.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on the en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment and encourage our colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment 33 as the designee of Mr. Cooper.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore funding for commonsense nuclear weapons reductions that have already been approved with the advice and consent of the Senate and that the Navy and the Air Force have planned for fiscal year 2014. The $70 million cut in the bill keeps nuclear weapons at Cold War levels, and denying fiscal year '14 funding risks the United States missing the deadline for treaty compliance as there will be insufficient lead time for procurement and installation to support conversion efforts to implement the reductions required by 2018, the date of entry into force. This amendment is funded by an offset of $50 million from DARPA's space technology program due to the recently terminated System F6, which was aimed to distribute functions of big satellites into several small ones orbiting in tight formation--so this funding is available-- and $20 million from the $2.1 billion in the Office of the Secretary of Defense O&M funds which pays OSD staff. This is a 1 percent cut with minimal impact, as the Secretary of Defense has indicated that he intends to make cuts to overhead. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?