Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close on this argument, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, to close, I assure the gentleman that, first, I am 100 percent sure that his amendment will dilute the original grant program. I am 100 percent sure there are other ways to finance this, especially through a very large MilCon budget that passed as part of the defense bill. And I am 100 percent sure that I am correct in opposing this amendment having been the author of the original bill to establish the AAM Infrastructure Act. Mr. Chair, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, on the committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we like to pride ourselves on being boring. We like to let folks know if they want excitement in Congress, there are other committees to attend or go to. The T&I Committee is not one of those. We like to think that we are focused on the transportation and infrastructure of the United States and on the things that we need to do to ensure its safety and building it out. I am confused by this amendment, that it exists at all, because what the amendment is doing is taking out a word, ``social,'' that the proponent is defining as something that is not in any way defined by the committee in the way he is defining it. Think about what we are talking about when we talk about the BEYOND program and what we would like to do beyond just looking at economic factors of drones. We want to look at how medical supplies can be delivered to rural areas. That is not an economic factor to look at. That is a social factor to look at, the ability to get healthcare to rural areas. The ability to assist law enforcement with things like search and rescue, that is not an economic factor. It is a social factor to ensure safer communities. Assisting wildfire responders as they fight wildfires, that is not an economic factor. That is a social issue to protect wildfire responders as well as the communities that are impacted by wildfires. I am just really confused. If this amendment had been in our committee and had been discussed, we would have never brought this up because it just doesn't live between our ears on the committee--this debate about the problem that people have with social factors. We would have realized these social factors are really about the things that I am talking about here, like how do we use the BEYOND program to ensure that we can use drones or uncrewed aerial systems, unmanned aerial systems, in order to provide factors that are beyond just the economic factors, how do they help the economy grow? They have uses beyond just helping the economy grow. The BEYOND program should be used to help us look at those issues. I would just ask folks to please let us do a bill that is actually trying to move aviation forward instead of bogging us down in some of these debates that frankly are better left, perhaps, in other committees but not in the T&I Committee.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chair, this is not only an issue that evokes passion among Members, it is also very bipartisan. It is going to be bipartisan in opposition and bipartisan in support. We expected that on the committee, which is why we had asked for the Rules Committee to put something in order on the floor so we could have this debate and let the will of the House take its course. I would just note, though, in my informal survey of Members on my side of the aisle, the seven slot pairs have been committed only 36 times already. The point is: There is a lot of overpromising taking place about which cities are going to be served by this deal. The problem with that is that one is too many and 100 is not enough, but the supply of runway at DCA is so small that it can't handle what it is taking now much less what increased demand will bring to it. Mr. Chair, it is a difficult issue. Members are going to be voting for and against on both sides, and I look forward to that vote. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike the requirement that the FAA administrator consider expanding the CLEEN Program, which stands for continuous lower energy, emission, and noise program, to new entrants. Now, I want to be clear. It doesn't necessarily mean new technologies or different kinds of technologies as much as it can also mean new companies that are looking to do the same thing but do it better. To ensure that the FAA administrator is not continually approving grants to existing companies that are already in the program who may not be succeeding, we want to be sure the FAA administrator is looking beyond the current slate of companies that are applying. In addition to that, of course, there are new entrants in the airspace. There is more projected use of even electronic aircraft. In the future, hydrogen is being looked at as a fuel for aviation--not tomorrow and maybe not in 5 years, but certainly within the next 10 to 15 years. Doing some of the early work in this field is very important, so the FAA administrator needs the authority and the freedom to do just that. This amendment is pulling back on some of the innovation that we, frankly, can only look to the government to do, so that it builds a foundation for the private sector to build upon and sometimes in this industry to take off as well. Mr. Chair, so I would ask Members to oppose this amendment. Let the administrator continue to administer the CLEEN Program but send a clear message that they need to be looking beyond the regular sort of entrants that they are getting into this program and look to the future of aviation when they look at the CLEEN Program. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, there is a race on. There is a race on aviation, a race to implement and use new fuels that are more efficient and that are also cleaner. There is a race on, and other countries and regions of the world are investing in that race, putting their companies at a competitive advantage over the U.S.-based companies. The CLEEN Program is one of our tools to participate in that race. The CLEEN Program also helps us invest in fuel efficiency. The fuel efficiency of aviation has helped reduce aviation fuel burn in this country. There is a direct relationship between the goodness of the taxpayer investment in the CLEEN Program to the new fuel-efficient airplanes that we see being used today and the fuel-efficient engines that we see being used today. The next version of that, the next step of that race is sustainable aviation fuel. It is in electric propulsion, and in the future it is hydrogen propulsion. There is quite a bit of private-sector investment going on in the use of hydrogen as a fuel to move things, including airplanes. Now, we are not quite there yet in this country in the private sector, but no one else is either. I want to win that race, and part of winning that race is ensuring that the Federal Government is a partner in winning that race. Winning that race in aviation is ensuring that FAA has tools like CLEEN to be sure that it is a partner with airlines, with entrepreneurs, and with innovators who want us to participate in this race. Mr. Chair, I ask Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if going to the Moon in 1969 was viable at all, the private sector would have done it. It didn't. We did it. America did it, and America did it with investment. I am not making a wild claim like going to the Moon is exactly this kind of race that we are faced with, but there is a clear role for the Federal Government to play in a partnership with innovators and entrepreneurs to ensure that the next generation of innovation and aviation happens in the United States and not elsewhere. I ask folks to support the CLEEN program, to not limit its use, and to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor Bruce Robert Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service. Bruce passed away suddenly on Friday, March 17, at the height of a distinguished career serving Congress. Bruce served Congress in several roles, including in the Senate Treaty Review Support Office and on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition. Beginning in 2003, he served for 20 years as an Analyst and then Specialist in Asian Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, bringing his considerable expertise in the Indo-Pacific region to bear on vital national security issues important for Congress. Bruce was a passionate and dedicated public servant who believed deeply in CRS's mission to provide Congress with authoritative, non-partisan and intelligent analysis. Bruce brought deep historical understanding of the region. He advised Congress on the most important issues of the day, but never stopped thinking ahead. From early in his career, Bruce anticipated the importance of the Indian Ocean region and Oceania to U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific. Given the importance of the region to my constituents, Bruce was a valuable resource to me and my legislative staff in preparing for official travel, welcoming high-level delegations from the region and organizing briefings. Even after Bruce's passing, staff and Members will continue to rely on his written analysis and expertise. I offer my sincere condolences to Bruce's family, friends and colleagues at the Congressional Research Service, and hope they may take comfort in the knowledge of his indelible and ongoing contribution to the work of Congress. Congress has lost a distinguished public servant. I thank Bruce and honor his life and his work.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic and ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic helps the United States and its NATO allies counter Russia and China through the accelerated development of innovative technologies to defend the U.S. and our NATO allies. These innovative technologies include artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and hypersonic missiles and defense, all valuable tools to give the U.S. and its NATO allies leverage over Russia and China. Continued U.S. leadership and collaboration with NATO allies on emerging technologies will lead to greater innovation and ensure the U.S. will have a direct influence on the modernization of the NATO alliance. Earlier this year, an American was elected chair of the board of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic, and two Americans currently serve on the board. The U.S. will lead this new, necessary NATO national security effort, and Americans will continue to work alongside its allies to build a stronger alliance and a safer world. In addition, the language that is in the underlying bill is actually the language to authorize the U.S. to begin funding its part. That is why the U.S. doesn't currently fund its part. We had to write legislation to get the U.S., the DOD, to get its authorization to fund its part in DIANA. In addition to that, in the next 5 years, the U.S. commitment is about $47 million, while NATO allies will contribute about $1.1 billion, so I would say we are going to get our money's worth, Mr. Chair. The U.S. must continue to support the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, support U.S. participation in NATO, and to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn H.R. 2811, the GOP's Default on America Act, which puts politics over people by making deep cuts that kill jobs, harm the economy and immediately impact families, seniors and small businesses in Northwest Washington. According to House Budget Committee and White House estimates, in my home state of Washington, the Default on America Act would: Put 371,000 people at risk of losing Medicaid coverage; Cut approximately $67 million in Title I funding for schools serving low-income children, impacting an estimated 420,000 students and reducing program funding to its lowest level in almost a decade; Make college more expensive for at least 308,000 students who receive Pell Grants; Threaten access to food assistance for 19,000 people; Eliminate preschool and child care for at least 4,800 children; Increase housing costs for at least 17,400 people; Eliminate at least 6 air traffic control towers; Cut at least 240 rail safety inspection days; Repeal investments in cleaner, cheaper energy--threatening at least 800 clean energy and manufacturing jobs announced in Washington since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. The Default on America Act would also undermine transportation safety, harm the environment and prevent communities from investing in critical infrastructure projects for the next decade. By making the U.S. default on certain debt obligations, the extreme GOP plan would also downgrade the U.S.' credit rating and international standing. According to House Budget Committee estimates, in Washington's Second Congressional District, defaulting on the debt would: Kill about 7,300 jobs in Northwest Washington; Jeopardize Social Security payments for 103,000 families in my district; Put health benefits at risk for 295,000 individuals in my district who rely on Medicare, Medicaid or Veterans Affairs health coverage; Increase lifetime mortgage costs for the typical homeowner in Washington by approximately $81,000; Raise the costs of a new car loan for the typical American by approximately $800; Threaten the retirement savings of more than 102,000 people near retirement in my district, eliminating $20,000 from a typical retirement portfolio. Congress must put people over politics by ensuring the U.S. government meets its obligations while ensuring historic investments like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act are fully implemented to create more jobs, lower costs and build cleaner, greener, safer and more accessible communities in the Pacific Northwest and across the country. I call on my House colleagues to join me in voting ``No'' on the extreme GOP Default on America Act.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, clean water is critical for the health and safety of our communities and our families. Our local businesses, farmers, and our economy depend on clean water for their success and their prosperity. House Democrats have a proud and successful history of supporting clean water. House Democrats have championed investments in our Nation's water and wastewater infrastructure systems, ensuring that all communities can trust in the safety of the water they drink and the treatment of the wastewater they produce. Last Congress, House Democrats provided historic, bipartisan investment in our Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Specifically for clean water, the BIL invests almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure and is creating jobs in communities across the country. The BIL showed what Congress can do when we focus on the needs of American families. Today, I would put to you that we are doing the opposite and putting polluters over people with this doomed veto override attempt. In my own State of Washington, we are defined by clean water, including the health of the iconic Puget Sound and the hundreds of crystal clear lakes and thousands of miles of rivers and streams that run through our State. My constituents know that rivers, streams, and wetlands are intrinsically connected. Pollution that starts in one body of water does not stay put. House Democrats know we can protect clean water while providing certainty to businesses, farmers, and for everyone who depends upon clean water for their lives and livelihoods. This is especially true for the 117 million Americans who depend on smaller streams as a source of drinking water at a time when many States continue to face historic droughts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want clean water rules that are simple, clear, and easy to follow. So do we. We agree on that. The Biden administration's Clean Water Restoration Rule does just that, following the law and the science of protecting clean water while providing regulatory certainty and stability for everyone. Unfortunately, this resolution will do the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the administration's call for vetoing H.J. Res. 27. The argument is that they want bright lines in the regulation of clean water, yet the only proposal that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to support is the Navigable Waters Protection Rule of the previous administration, a proposal that removed Federal protections on roughly half of the Nation's wetlands and 70 percent of its rivers and streams. That rule was rightly rejected by a Federal court, not by this administration, but by a Federal court in 2021, as fundamentally flawed and likely to cause serious environmental harm every day that it remained in effect. Yet, despite their call for certainty, my colleagues have failed to recognize that passage of this resolution that is before us today would leave Americans without a clear definition of waters of the United States. By taking away this clarity, this resolution brings back the very same uncertainty and ambiguity that supporters claim to be concerned about. I know they are concerned about that uncertainty. This resolution will adversely impact farmers, ranchers, and developers by creating regulatory chaos and eliminating important exclusions that have been codified in this administration's rule to help water-dependent businesses and farmers understand and comply with the law. For example, because it prohibits the EPA from issuing substantially the same rule, this resolution means the elimination of two longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior converted crop land--exclusions that have been relied upon by communities, developers, industry, and farmers for decades. This resolution would also eliminate six new regulatory exclusions for features considered generally non-jurisdictional, including certain ditches, artificially irrigated areas, and artificial lakes or ponds. Ironically, this resolution will result in more uncertainty and more bodies of water being regulated than under the administration's proposal. You don't have to take my word for it. Just read the Congressional Budget Office report accompanying this resolution. It is right in there. As I mentioned previously on this floor and in another debate on this issue, the Biden proposal will not adversely impact family farmers in this country, period. Why? Because farmers are, by statute, largely exempt from the Clean Water Act regulation where less than 1 percent of all wetlands permits relate to ag activities nationwide. Therefore, if a farm is engaged in normal farming, forestry, and ranching activity, that farm is exempt from regulation, and the current proposal does not change that exemption. In short, this resolution still makes no sense. It invalidates the Biden rule and all the clarifications and all of the exceptions for business it contains in favor of a similarly structured but much less clear regulatory framework. It increases uncertainty and the likelihood of continued legal battles and gridlock; the opposite of what businesses and farmers are looking for. Mr. Speaker, I support this administration's efforts on clean water, both through implementation of the critical bipartisan infrastructure law investments in water infrastructure and its veto of this shortsighted resolution. This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to oppose this resolution and work toward real predictability for businesses that need it, and clean water for communities that cannot survive without it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter from 111 organizations opposed to overriding the veto of this Congressional Review Act resolution. April 17, 2023. Re: Vote NO on the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval of the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States''. Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the attempt to override President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 27, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval targeting the Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States'' rule (Clean Water Restoration Rule). This dangerous legislation would invalidate the Biden administration's recently finalized regulation, which ensures protections for many of the waters that our families and communities value and depend on. This Clean Water Restoration Rule ensures that critical waters--from small streams to rivers to wetlands--are protected from unregulated pollution and destruction when they have important downstream effects on water quality. The rule is a return to a familiar approach that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have used to identify waters that qualify as ``waters of the United States'' since President George W. Bush's administration. It also resoundingly rejects the Trump-era approach, which unlawfully and unscientifically rolled back the Clean Water Act's long standing protections and reinstates basic safeguards to ensure big polluters can be stopped from recklessly and indiscriminately bulldozing our wetlands and dumping waste into our streams. The Clean Water Restoration Rule is grounded in science, which demonstrates that the condition of waters often depends on water bodies upstream, and those upstream waters must be protected to safeguard the health of downstream communities and the environment. The rule will more effectively fulfill the purpose of the Clean Water Act: ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' By using the Congressional Review Act to attack the Clean Water Restoration Rule, H.J. Res. 27 is employing an incredibly blunt tool in a dangerous attempt to undermine the Clean Water Act itself. When a rule is undone using the CRA process, future administrations are prevented from issuing rules that are ``substantially the same,'' which could undermine future agency action to the benefit of polluters. Despite rhetoric that this bill is being promoted to provide certainty for businesses and other stakeholders, it would actually do the opposite. For instance, should H.J. Res. 27 become law, both protections and exemptions codified in the Clean Water Restoration Rule, including ones for the agriculture industry, could be called into question in future efforts designed to define ``waters of the United States.'' The only stakeholders who benefit from this attack on our clean water protections are big polluters who dump waste into our waterways and burden our families and communities with the health and environmental costs. Again, we ask you to oppose the veto override of H.J. Res. 27, the CRA joint resolution disapproving of the Biden-Harris administration's Revised Definition of the ``Waters of the United States.'' This harmful bill is simply a polluter- driven effort to undermine the Clean Water Act and the critical safeguards that it provides for our waters. Congress should be doing more, not less, to protect our waterways and to ensure that everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income, has access to clean, safe water. Sincerely, 350.org; A Community Voice; Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; American Rivers; American Sustainable Business Network; Amigos Bravos; Anthropocene Alliance; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Asociacion de Residentes de La Margaita, Inc; Atchafalaya Basinkeeper; Black Millennials 4 Flint; Cahaba River Society; California Environmental Voters; Center for a Sustainable Coast; Center for Biological Diversity. Center for Environmental Transformation; Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean Water Action; Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & Sustainable Community, Inc.; Coalition for Wetlands and Forests; Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River; Community In- Power and Development Association Inc. (CIDA Inc.); Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety; Concerned Citizens of Cook County (Georgia); Conservation Alabama; Earthjustice; Endangered Habitats League; Environment America; Environment Maine; Environment Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Montana; Environment Nevada. Environment New Hampshire; Environment New York; Environment Ohio; Environment Rhode Island; Environment Texas; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Working Group; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW); Freshwater Accountability Project; Freshwater Future; Friends of Buckingham; Friends of the Mississippi River; Gila Resources Information Project; Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance; Greater Neighborhood Alliance of Jersey City, NJ; Green Latinos; Groundswell Charleston SC; Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition; Harpeth Conservancy. Healthy Gulf; Hispanic Federation; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Izaak Walton League of America; Lake Erie Waterkeeper; Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance; Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG); League of Conservation Voters; Lynn Canal Conservation; Maine Conservation Voters; Malach Consulting; Michigan League of Conservation Vote; Milton's Concerned Citizens; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Mississippi River Collaborative; Missouri Confluence Waterkeeper; Montana Conservation Voters; MS Communities United for Prosperity (MCUP). National Wildlife Federation; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural Resources Defense Council; NC Conservation Network; NC League of Conservation Voters; New Mexico Climate Justice; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of Conservation Voters; Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition; Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness; Ohio Environmental Council; Ohio River Foundation; Our Children's Earth Foundation; Park Watershed; Patagonia Area Resource Alliance; PES; Rapid Creek Watershed Action; Renewal of Life Trust. River Network; Save the Illinois River, Inc., STIR; Serene Wildlife Sanctuary LLC; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The Clinch Coalition; The Water Collaborative of Greater Greater New Orleans; Tookany/ Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership; Virginia League of Conservation Voters; Washington Conservation Action; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; Weequahic Park Association; Winyah Rivers Alliance.

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).