Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this en bloc. It includes several amendments that strengthen the bill, including: A proposal from Representative Magaziner to ensure AIP funding can be used for cybersecurity projects; An amendment from Representatives Meng, Norton, Johnson, Nadler, and Raskin to ensure overflight community feedback is considered as the FAA updates its aircraft noise policies; A proposal from Representative Neguse of Colorado to ensure the FAA directly interviews residents from communities impacted by aircraft noise as part of its community engagement efforts; Several proposals from Representative Pettersen of Colorado to address community noise concerns, in-flight emergency medical kits, and pilot mental health; A bipartisan proposal from Representatives Porter and Westerman to audit and improve the FAA's responsiveness to congressional requests--I just can't imagine who couldn't support that; and A proposal from Representative Pressley to study transit access to airports. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support en bloc No. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment would create an apprenticeship program for individuals seeking to become commercial pilots. I do want to say I am very pleased to be able to support many of Representative Donalds' amendments to the bill, working in a bipartisan manner. This one I just couldn't come to a place where I am comfortable, but certainly as a long-time supporter of aviation and STEM-related apprenticeships, I do appreciate the intent of Representative Donalds' amendment. However, it is duplicative of several provisions in the underlying bill that already bolster the pilot pipeline. This authorization already triples the funding for FAA's Aviation Workforce Development Grant programs, which funds aviation apprenticeship programs. It creates the Willa Brown Aviation Education Program, which could fund apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented communities and creates a National Center for the Advancement of Aerospace, an independently, federally chartered nonprofit entity to administer grants to establish apprenticeships for aviation careers and serve as a centralized resource to provide comprehensive information on aviation apprenticeship opportunities. I earlier adopted an amendment in the en bloc amendment that was sponsored by Representatives Schrier and Gooden to help veterans transition into the commercial pilot world. Apprenticeships are already well covered in this underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment because it would create an exemption for nonhub airports from the requirement to have at least one individual who maintains certification as an emergency medical technician, or EMT, during carrier operations. This amendment poses a safety risk that would be detrimental to passengers. Unlike what the proponent said about the Federal Government imposing an employment requirement on an airport, this is actually a single safety standard that applies to all airports, that there be a certified emergency technician to respond to emergencies at all airports. It is, indeed, a national standard, but one done for safety, especially in support of passenger carrying air carrier operations. In the event of a medical emergency that occurs at the airport or on a flight, passengers and airport workers should receive care as quickly as possible regardless of where they are flying to. Having an EMT available at the airport could mean the difference between life and death in the event of an emergency. All passengers should be reassured that even if they are traveling out of or through a nonhub airport, they have the same safety precautions at that airport as they do at all airports in the United States. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, as a Member of Congress who represents several small rural airports, including ones that are isolated on islands, I appreciate the argument that the gentleman from Iowa has been making. Yet, given the fact that I have a district with some of the same circumstances, even airports that are isolated on islands, I still believe that there needs to be EMTs available in the event of emergencies at these nonhub airports. I want one safety standard for the country, and I urge my colleagues 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. Chair, the FAA recently issued a final rule on requiring secondary barriers to protect the flight deck in newly manufactured aircraft. The underlying text of this bill creates a rulemaking committee to consider how to apply this requirement to existing aircraft, and this amendment adds a rulemaking requirement to that text. Secondary barriers are a critical tool to keeping our pilots and flight decks safe and secure in the event of a horrible, horrible intrusion. Mr. Chair, therefore, I rise to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the FAA to consider the economic viability of commercial air tours over national parks. In 2022, the National Park Service recorded 312 million recreational visits to our national parks. This number reflects the overwhelming significance our parks have to the American public. They serve as a place of recreation, a place used to teach new generations about conservation and wildlife, and a place to admire the beauty of our great outdoors in the U.S. National park air tour management plans are in place to help protect the sanctity of our parks from incessant helicopter overflights, which can disrupt both the wildlife and the natural beauty of the parks visitors enjoy. Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to protect our parks from the noise and disturbance of increased helicopter tours by voting ``no'' on this amendment. This amendment would require air tour management plans to consider profits in the development of those plans, which would undoubtedly increase the number of helicopters flying above our parks. This runs contrary to the original purpose of these management plans, which is to protect the integrity of the parks. Helicopter tours are an incredible way to see national parks for the privileged few, but they simultaneously degrade the park experience for the vast majority of other park visitors. Our national parks were created as a public good, to preserve our natural wonders for all Americans to enjoy. We must not erode that in favor of tour profits and those who can afford to pay. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, before I yield to my good friend, Representative Case from Hawaii, I would note that he is a great American, and I do think that the debates here on the floor of the House are a reflection of being great Americans as opposed to being un-American. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, there has been a good debate on this bill. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, and clearly, there are experiences where helicopters and helicopter tours do disrupt the wildlife, other visitors, and the people around national parks. Mr. Chair, I ask all the Americans in this body to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment would require the DOT inspector general to investigate the FAA's decision to increase the electrocardiogram, or EKG, range that is permissible for pilots. This amendment follows a change made by the agency last October to increase the allowable range of an EKG result from 200 to 300 milliseconds without requiring further documentation from the pilot. The FAA's change in the allowable EKG result range was based on scientific data from cardiovascular experts documented in the public domain. Such data shows that an EKG result under 300 milliseconds indicates that the pilot has no real risk of sudden heart failure if there are no other medical issues. Medical standards and recommendations have always evolved over time as medicine becomes more advanced and health professionals learn new information. The FAA should take advantage of the latest guidance from medical experts to ensure these guidelines for pilots are as safe as possible. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, in closing, I will say that the FAA's action, despite some claims, was not taken in response to any change in pilot medical conditions or heart health due to having received the COVID vaccine. That has been a claim in less scientific circles. This decision was made based on science, using the experts, using science, and using data. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues 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. Chair, this amendment would direct the FAA Administrator to require air carriers, airlines and others, to reinstate pilots that may have lost their jobs because of noncompliance with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The FAA cannot direct air carriers on hiring decisions like this. It cannot require air carriers to hire specific individuals. This amendment simply is not implementable. Is that where we are going with this bill, to let the FAA make hiring and firing decisions for these private aviation companies? Furthermore, this amendment revives an unnecessary debate on COVID-19 vaccine mandates, one that we had 3 years ago. This is an unwelcome distraction from this very substantive reauthorization discussion on this bill that will enhance safety and the aviation workforce. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, the FAA does not really have a role to play in telling air carriers to hire the folks back. It is not an amendment that is implementable. I am a little flummoxed by it myself. However, I encourage my colleagues to vote against 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. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I am happy this amendment is coming up because I hope the gentleman from Michigan will vote against a further amendment that may come up later tonight that will get rid of this program altogether, this vertiport infrastructure grant program. Mr. Chair, I am glad he likes it enough to add to it, and I hope others feel that way, too, so we can protect the basis of this program. I know all about it because I wrote the bill to actually create this program in the first place. It was done with a very specific purpose in mind, and the gentleman noted the criteria involved--to help State, local, and Tribal governments be part of the advanced air mobility future. We were very clear about that. Another thing we were very clear about when we wrote that bill and got it into law was to ensure that it was as neutral as possible when it came to any number of the advanced air mobility companies that were seeking to develop and get certified by the FAA and operate within the United States. Prioritizing the grants awarded under the AAM infrastructure program to entities that collaborate with the Department of Defense or the National Guard would actually put a thumb on the scale for the three companies that are actually involved with this effort with the DOD. There are many other AAM companies that are not involved with the DOD, and this would put these companies sort of at a head start over these others. Since its inception in 2019, as a for instance, the U.S. Air Force's Agility Prime program has focused on the potential defense applications of eVTOL aircraft, or electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, and what we call on the commercial side of things, AAM. Through Agility Prime, the DOD partners with these industry leaders and key stakeholders to examine the airworthiness and military uses for AAM aircraft and necessary infrastructure to support strategic cargo and personnel transport. In fact, that program within the DOD has awarded over 20 contracts, totaling more than $100 million, to very innovative aviation companies to further develop their advanced aircraft as they work toward civil certifications and commercial operations, but doing that with the help of the Department of Defense. Mr. Chair, I support fostering this U.S. innovation, but this amendment would prioritize the funding through the AAM Infrastructure Pilot program, which funds State and local government planning efforts for future civil AAM infrastructure and operations, to efforts that are being addressed under Agility Prime. There is a place to do this. It is called DOD's military construction budget. We just passed an authorization of nearly $886 billion last week out of the House of Representatives. Surely, there are a few dollars in that budget for the DOD to use to improve the taxiways and the aprons at these joint sites that the National Guard and the Air Force use with civilian airports rather than go after the really fairly small amounts that are available in these transportation planning grants that we were able to get through the AAM infrastructure planning grant. I would just tell folks there is a place for these companies to go. It should not be these planning grants. It should be the DOD construction budget. Besides, if we do that, it will give these particular companies a head start over many other companies, and, frankly, in fact, the cities and counties [that are trying to access these grants already. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, is it my time or his time he is going to use?