Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a note that the argument that this is like a taking does not hold any water--excuse the pun--because a 1992 case in the Supreme Court determined that rules like this actually do not qualify as a taking under the U.S. Constitution or under U.S. law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I want to be clear that I do agree with some of the comments made by the previous speaker that this has been a ping-pong match among administrations over the last 10 years where all Americans have lived under various definitions of this rule. I, too, want to end that ping-pong match which is why I am calling on the House of Representatives to vote ``no'' on this resolution and get on with the certainty that the current administration's rule provides. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do have to address the comment about who cares about rural America. I am not making an argument today that any one party or any one person cares more about rural America. However, if we are going to support rural America, keep implementing the bipartisan infrastructure law, which puts $65 billion into broadband, including billions of dollars to expand broadband into rural areas--something happening in my State and States around the country. Pass comprehensive immigration reform so there is a supply of workers in this country, including farmworkers. Open up trade agreements. Open up trade for agriculture, including ag in my State, in my own district for the milk producers, the potato producers, the raspberry and blueberry producers, who are exporting product all over the country. That is what it means--at least on my side of the State--to support rural America. I support rural America, and a lot of folks in this Chamber on both sides support our farmers and rural America. Let's take action to do just that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This debate we are having today is only about clean water, and we need to put people and clean water above pollution. The administration has a rule that provides certainty, and we should move forward on that. But this debate is about clean water. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will note that in the current administration's rule the agencies added six additional exclusions to the regulatory text for generally nonjurisdictional features under the pre-2015 regulatory effort and continues the agencies' two longstanding exclusions for wastewater treatment systems and prior converted farmland. In addition, the final rule continues the agencies' longstanding regulatory definition of wetlands, as well. Now, that changed a longstanding definition of wetlands, something that again adds to the certainty of the rule as well as with the six additional exclusions creates more exclusions than in the Bush-era rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Last year, this Congress came together to provide historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure through the bipartisan infrastructure law, providing communities with almost $13 billion in clean water infrastructure upgrades and creating jobs. These clean water investments help areas like Skagit County, where I am from, which has used the Clean Water State Revolving Fund money to protect the water quality of Gilligan Creek, the drinking water source for many in that county. Every day, more and more American families are realizing the public health, economic, and environmental benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure law, benefits that will continue as additional BIL resources are made available and implemented across the country. The BIL is what Congress can do at its best. This resolution is not. This resolution provides no benefits to public health. It seeks to eliminate protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands, many of which serve as a source of drinking water for hundreds of millions of Americans. This resolution provides no benefits to our economy as a whole. It not only casts aside a time-tested, scientifically based tool to implement the Clean Water Act, but then further blocks the Corps of Engineers and the EPA from providing any additional clarity to businesses, farmers, and homebuilders going forward. In short, this resolution is a recipe for uncertainty, for litigation, for continued gridlock, the very things that my friends on the other side of the aisle are really trying to avoid, as we are as well. This resolution is a step backward for clean water. It is a step backward for certainty. I urge my colleagues to see this resolution for what it is. It is not for clean water. It is an attack on our clean water future. It fails to provide clarity. It fails to provide consistency for our businesses, our farmers, and for many in our communities who rely on clean water who are not businesses, who are not farmers, who are not ranchers. Many of those folks look to Congress to ensure clean water, as well. Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 27, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 7, a resolution to terminate the COVID-19 emergency declaration, a resolution introduced by Representative Gosar. The coronavirus pandemic has been a public health and economic calamity for our country. We lost over 1 million of our fellow citizens to this deadly virus in wave after wave of devastating news for families. Entire industries have been forced to shut down and then restart from a standstill. Others have had to entirely reimagine the way they do business, costing billions of dollars in the process. The impact of the pandemic was inequitable in the extreme. The digital divide grew even wider as those with internet access could work from home or go to school from home while others were left behind. Transportation workers, healthcare workers, law enforcement, and grocery store workers were all unable to work from home, leaving them at an elevated risk during a very dangerous time. But thanks to actions of the previous Congress, including the American Rescue Plan, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the bipartisan infrastructure law, we are well on our way to robust recovery from this dark chapter of our Nation's history. However, our work is not done. New variants continue to emerge, taking a toll on our workforce and exacerbating the labor shortage facing many businesses. Healthcare workers are still on the front lines of this pandemic. Last week, they saw nearly 4,000 Americans die from COVID. Terminating the emergency declaration now sends the wrong message and could have consequences for public health and safety. In my State alone, we had over 4,000 cases in last week. The uncertain impact of long COVID, particularly on those with preexisting health conditions, adds a layer of complexity to our path to normalcy. With these complex issues still facing businesses, local leaders, and the American people, it would be harmful and irresponsible to force a premature end to the flexibility offered by the Presidential emergency declaration from March of 2020. President Biden has no intention of using these emergency powers forever. We know that because he announced his intention to end the COVID-19 national emergency on May 11. This May deadline provides time to develop a strategic and a thoughtful plan regarding the termination of these authorities. There is no need for Congress to act now before the President acts on this issue. Forcing an end to the emergency declaration without regard to the consequences is shortsighted and wrong. There are many examples where a rushed move to end the national emergency declaration could have unintended negative consequences for the U.S. Ending the emergency declaration would roll back the enrollment and payment deadlines for individuals who have lost their jobs to sign up for COBRA or pay COBRA premiums. This will mean burdensome deadlines on consumers who get healthcare coverage from job- based plans, including laid-off workers and their families. Ending the emergency declaration will reverse efforts to address mass incarceration and prison crowding by terminating the CARES Act home confinement provisions. This makes it difficult for the Bureau of Prisons to protect inmates who are at high risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. Ending the emergency declaration will end video court proceedings. This is inefficient and will cost marshals time and money if they resume transporting inmates back and forth to court. Ending the emergency declaration will cut preplanned sickness benefits and unemployment benefits for rail workers. It is wrong to cut these earned benefits when rail workers need them most. Ending the emergency declaration will also threaten Victims of Crime Assistance funding, or VOCA funding, a critical lifeline for individuals and children dealing with the aftermath of being a victim to crime. The administration has a plan to bring the national emergency declaration to an orderly end on May 11, aligning with its commitment to give at least 60 days' notice prior to termination. I think this is a sensible and reasoned approach that Congress should support. We shouldn't be using an ax when a scalpel will do. Rushing this resolution to the floor is the wrong approach, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just note that there is no record that the national emergency exacerbated supply chain problems in the U.S. There is every record in evidence that COVID exacerbated supply chain problems in the U.S., bringing our economy to a standstill, and in my view, every evidence that the investment in the bipartisan infrastructure law and the CHIPS and Science Act are doing exactly what they needed to do, to bring our economy back. There is no evidence otherwise. Just saying that for the record. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, thank you for that announcement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the administration has a plan to bring the national emergency declaration to an early end on May 11, aligning with its commitment to at least 60 days' notice prior to termination. This gives time for a deliberate and sensible wind down of the national emergency. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 7, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note that everyone is looking forward to the day when COVID-19 is a distant memory. But we have to work toward that day cautiously and steadily, and the emergency declaration should not be terminated until there is time to conduct a careful review on science. It should not be terminated on the whim of any one Member of Congress. The administration has a plan to bring the national emergency declaration to an orderly end on May 11, aligning with their commitment to give at least 60 days' notice prior to the termination. I think it is a sensible and reasoned approach that Congress should support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that if we are going cite President Biden's comment that the pandemic is over, will the House also agree with the President that there will be no cuts to Social Security and Medicare? Will the House also agree that President Biden has said that the economy has turned around, creating 11 million jobs, and the economy is robust? If we are going to pick and choose what the President says to make any one argument, then let's look at the totality of the President's record, in fairness to the President. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fond of quoting the President and saying the pandemic is over. I just hope they will also agree with the President that we have had the 2 strongest years of job growth in history the last 2 years. We have had the lowest level of unemployment in 50 years. We have a new record low unemployment for Black and Hispanic Americans and record low unemployment for people with disabilities. I hope as they are picking and choosing what they choose to agree with the President on, that they look at these facts, and also come out and agree with the President that these are also the facts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 255, the Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act, introduced by Representatives Gonzalez- Colon, Peters, and Plaskett. This legislation amends the Disaster Recovery Reform Act to help Federal agencies streamline and consolidate information collection and Preliminary Damage Assessments following disasters. After a major disaster, there is no time to wait for bureaucracy. However, Federal recovery assistance following disasters is currently hampered by inefficient information collection and assessments conducted by multiple agencies. This bill will remove information collection barriers that currently impede disaster aid. It creates a working group to identify duplicative assessments and propose their elimination. Further, it would streamline Federal disaster recovery efforts by concluding that a single agency is sufficient to conduct damage assessments to account for the needs of disaster victims. The Federal Government can and should be doing this work smarter. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I inquire of my colleague if there are any remaining speakers on his side.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bipartisan bill passed the House on suspension in the 116th and 117th Congresses. It will help disaster survivors by taking a step toward streamlining the Federal Government's fragmented approach to disaster assistance. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 259. This bill, introduced by Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon and Delegate Plaskett would create a new online system for tracking Federal disaster projects and assistance. People should know how and where their disaster funds are being spent without wading through reams of governmental paperwork. This legislation simplifies the data collection process for Federal disaster recovery projects. To increase transparency, the bill also creates a page on USASpending.gov where everyone can track agency disaster recovery activities and the amount of assistance expended by an agency on a quarterly basis. Federal agencies need to be accountable to the victims of disasters and allow them peace of mind when they are at their most vulnerable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides to join with me and support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.