Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2042, the APEC Business Travel Card bill. This bill is bipartisan, and it levels the playing field for U.S. businessmen and -women who export their products into other APEC economies. Since joining the APEC Business Travel Card program as a transitional member in 2007, the U.S. has been extending the benefits of having an APEC Business Travel Card to foreign businessmen and -women in 18 other economies but not to our own. These benefits include being permitted to use the ``crew'' or designated ``APEC Business Travel Card'' lanes in airports when entering a country as well as having expedited visa processing. As of October 12, 2011, there were over 100,000 foreign ABTC holders--but no Americans. Today's legislation simply levels the playing field by directing the Department of Homeland Security to establish an APEC Business Travel Card that will allow Americans to use the card to gain expedited entry into participating APEC economies when they go abroad and use Customs and Border Protection's, or CBP's, Global Entry program for expedited reentry back into the United States. This will make travel throughout the Asia-Pacific region easier for American businessmen and -women and will help them to more efficiently sell their products overseas. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), for his hard work on this bill as well as fellow APEC Caucus cochairs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for their support as well. The future of the United States is tied to the Asia-Pacific region. With the hosting of the APEC summit by the United States in less than a month, it is important that the APEC Business Travel Card program is established. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. In conclusion, I want to thank the leadership of this House for working with me and the gentleman from Texas to get this bill scheduled for House consideration.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Investing Income at Home Act of 2011, legislation that simplifies the outdated personal holding company (``PHC'') tax regime and will help certain closely held companies invest money here at home to create jobs and help our economy recover. Enacted in 1934, the PHC tax provisions (sections 541-547 of the Internal Revenue Code) are outdated. The goal of the PHC tax when it was originally enacted was to prevent wealthy individuals from avoiding the individual income tax on passive income like interest, dividends and rents by forming corporations to hold these investments. In the 1930s the corporate tax rate was 13.5 percent and the top individual income tax rate was 63 percent. This 49.5 percent differential between the top corporate and individual tax rate--coupled with the ability to liquidate and distribute appreciated corporate assets without tax consequences--provided an incentive for wealthy individuals to incorporate their portfolio investments. Those incentives have largely vanished under current law. First, the top marginal tax rate for both individuals and corporations is 35%. Second, corporate liquidating distributions of appreciated assets are taxed at the corporate level. Current law provides no incentive to incorporate portfolio investments to escape the individual income tax. The PHC tax is an obsolete tax that should be repealed. Section 541 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a corporate level penalty tax of 15% on the undistributed personal holding company income of a PHC. Under current law, this rate is scheduled to return to the highest individual tax rate of 39.6% when the lower dividend tax rate expires in 2011. A corporation constitutes a PHC if 60% of its adjusted gross income is PHC income and if 50% of its stock is owned by five or fewer individual shareholders at any time during the last half of the taxable year. PHC income generally is defined as interest, dividends, royalties, rents, and certain other types of passive investment income. Furthermore, in the case of a group of corporations filing a consolidated return, the PHC test is generally conducted on the basis of the operations of the consolidated group. However, in certain circumstances the test must be conducted on a separate company basis. When the test is conducted on a separate company basis, a group of corporations filing a consolidated return can easily find that it has a personal holding company tax liability even though a great majority of its revenue is generated from the active conduct of its trade or businesses. The requirement to conduct the PHC tests on a separate company basis often unfairly penalizes corporate groups that are actively engaged in business. A common fact pattern that gives rise to this unwarranted imposition of the PHC tax is where a member of the group receives dividends from controlled foreign subsidiaries. In this case, the separate company PHC tax computation serves as a deterrent to the repatriation and reinvestment of foreign earnings in the United States. The legislation I am introducing would exclude dividends received from a firm's foreign affiliates and reinvested in the United States from the definition of personal holding company income. This bill will provide that corporations impacted by the PHC that benefit from the provision would pay the same level of corporate tax as similarly situated publicly traded corporations. This would free them to invest dividends from foreign affiliates into the U.S. economy, helping to create much-needed jobs here in America. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation that will clean up an outdated part of the Tax Code and help to create good jobs in the United States.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 707 I missed the vote due to a personal family issue. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 709, I missed the vote due to a personal family issue. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2587, the ``Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.'' This bill is before us because of an ongoing dispute between the International Association of Machinists and the Boeing Company that stems from an issue involving my district in Washington State. The case is proceeding through a well-established process where the facts of the case and the application of the law to those facts will be determined by an Administrative Law Judge, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and possibly the federal courts. This case should be determined based on the facts and the law--not on politics. For this bill to come to the floor while this case is ongoing is troublesome and threatens the independence of the NLRB. Congress should not be attempting to influence the NLRB process for political gains. The NLRB is an independent adjudicatory agency. We need to protect the independence of the NLRB and allow it to do its job. Instead of playing politics we should instead be focused on creating jobs and getting our economy back on track. Last week, the President challenged this Congress to put aside partisanship and get to work on creating jobs. The single biggest action Congress could take to save and create jobs is make significant investment in our transportation infrastructure that will create private sector construction jobs, invest in the repair and maintenance of highways, roads, bridges and transit, and set the foundation for future economic growth. This is what we should be talking about today. Not attacking an independent agency that is simply doing its job. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and allow the NLRB to determine this case based on the facts and law--not on politics. And let's get back to work doing what the American public wants us to do--creating jobs.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 708 I missed the vote due to a personal family issue. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Fortenberry amendment to increase funding for the NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. This amendment, which I cosponsored, provides a $35 million increase to the nonproliferation account. Unfortunately, this increase represents only a small percentage of the $463 million in cuts to nonproliferation in the bill. Nonproliferation efforts are vital to our national security. These programs ensure that loose nuclear material is secured and prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of hostile countries or terrorists. To implement drastic budget cuts does very real damage to the progress we are making toward these goals. Just last year at the Nuclear Summit, President Obama gained the agreement from several countries to work with the U.S. in securing nuclear weapons-grade material. Through the NNSA Global Threat Reduction Initiative, we will work with nations like Poland, Ghana, Nigeria, Kazakhstan and others to remove highly enriched uranium and to convert their reactors. There is no question: taking these steps is very much in the national security of the U.S. There are those who would do anything to gain and use this material to do significant harm to our troops and our country. I am supportive of this amendment, but it represents only a step toward the resources that are necessary for this important program.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak about my amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. This amendment establishes a Global Contingency Security Fund, jointly administered by the Department of State and Department of Defense. This fund is meant to build the capacity of foreign nations to combat terrorist organizations and to stabilize their regions, goals consistent with U.S. national security interests. The defense and security infrastructure of foreign nations varies and this fund provides State and DOD the flexibility necessary to provide training and equipment to our foreign partners where it will have the best effect. My amendment spends no new money--rather, it allows resources to be pooled from existing monies available to State and DOD. Additionally, it requires that human rights and legitimate civilian authority and governments are respected in every activity and use of the fund. The best thing we can do to stabilize and strengthen volatile regions of the globe is to build partner capacity, something my amendments aims to achieve. I thank Armed Services Committee Chair McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman for their support and cosponsorship of the amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. In its current form, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does one simple thing: It continues the Home Affordable Modification Program for members of the Armed Forces and Gold Star recipients. Mr. Speaker, we all know the Home Affordable Modification Program has not performed to the original projections, but this is an effort that has provided 600,000 permanent loan modifications. Six hundred thousand American families are still in their homes because of this effort. I doubt these families would tell you it is not working. Mr. Speaker, some will say that terminating this program won't affect those who have already received modifications or are working through a modification currently. Yet many more families still need help, especially military and gold star families. Even though the economy is beginning to recover, the housing market is still struggling. HAMP is currently helping 30,000 additional families every month. I would prefer that we keep this effort going for everyone. But if we are not about to, at a minimum we need to preserve this program for active military and gold star families. Regardless of how anyone feels about the underlying legislation and regardless of how anybody feels about the funding for the original legislation, we can all agree that we owe our men and women in uniform a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. While defending our country, servicemembers should not be afraid that their families will lose the roof over their heads, but that's the very situation in which a Navy sailor found himself last year as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Seven thousand miles from home, there was little he could do to help his spouse balance the stress of raising two children, of her work, and of household expenses. To top it off, their mortgage was about to jump to almost $2,300 a month. But this family was able to find relief in the Home Affordable Modification Program. They applied for a trial modification under HAMP and began making reduced payments. After a few months, their modification became permanent and reduced their monthly payment by almost $400. This program helps keep servicemembers and their families in their homes. Some will say that this bill includes a study on the best practices that could be applied to mortgage assistance programs to help members of our military. But, Mr. Speaker, you can't live in a study. A study does not put a roof over your head. A study doesn't provide shelter for your children. And a study won't help you pay your bills when your mortgage rate skyrockets. Mr. Speaker, our servicemembers and gold star families don't need a stack of paper telling them the ways that we might help. They need actual help. As it currently stands, this bill takes something from our men and women in uniform, a mortgage assistance program, and gives them nothing in return. My district includes two Navy bases, each home to thousands of servicemembers and their families. Additionally, the district has the Washington State National Guard and Reserve located there. I am proud to represent these men and women and am honored by the work they do each day. These men and women and their families sacrifice for our country. While they're protecting our families, the least we can do is protect their homes. Let's be clear. The passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If the amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill, and the bill will be immediately voted upon. We need to do all in our power to ensure the men and women who fight and die in our wars are able to keep their homes. It's very simple. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this final amendment. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of investing in our nation's infrastructure to create good, family-wage jobs. The American people want Congress to focus on growing jobs and getting the economy back on track. But the new majority has failed to present any plan to tackle our economic problems or create new jobs for Americans left struggling in the wake of the economic recession. Of course oversight is important. In fact, the Democrats conducted 1,400 oversight hearings in the 110th Congress. But let's not waste two days debating something we are already doing while the American people need us to focus on jobs and the economy. We need a jobs plan now that will invest in our infrastructure so we can rebuild our nation's crumbling roads, bridges, highways and railroads to keep our economy moving and create good jobs in our communities. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am committed to improving and enhancing our infrastructure so we can expand our workforce and maintain U.S. economic leadership in the world. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided effort and direct our attention instead to policies that will get our economy moving and create jobs.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 24, I missed the vote inadvertantly due to a constituent meeting in my office. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to this patients' rights repeal and deficit explosion act. The bill before us today, according to the nonpartisan CBO, is going to add $230 billion to our national debt. We should not stand for that. The bill before us today is going to repeal efforts that we put in place to be sure that young adults can get on to their parents' insurance plans. If we repeal this, it is going to knock 20,000 young adults in Washington State alone off their parents' plans. If we repeal this bill today, it's going to take away help for 45,000 seniors in Washington State who are relying on the efforts that we have done over the last couple of years to be sure that we are closing the Medicare doughnut hole. Repeal of the health care reform law is going to put those folks back into the doughnut hole. Finally, we ought to oppose repeal of this bill because of the simple fact that there is a young woman in my district who has severe mental health illness and her family was able to take her onto their health care plan because of the provisions we have put in there about preexisting conditions. That family is now saving $10,000 a year out of pocket. I am asking folks to oppose the repeal of this bill.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Speaker, what does the Lord require? Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. These words from the prophet Micah are as true today as they were when first spoken. They provide guidance to how we in Congress can lead by example for everyone in this country as we try to come to terms with the tragedy in Arizona. We can work with each other with justice, with mercy and humility in our hearts. When Micah said these words, they were guidance. Today they are a plea. And I know that we can heed these words. Madam Speaker, I ask that we keep all the victims and the families of this tragedy in our prayers, and I especially ask that we keep Gabby in our hearts.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. ``When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: provided that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislative may direct.''

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, day one of the 112th Congress and House Republicans are already violating their campaign promises and the needs of the American people. The set of rules they introduced today will explode our debt and deficit, kill our economic recovery and make the House of Representatives less transparent. Like a lemming, the set of budget rules contained in this package will push us further off the deficit cliff. It breaks the promise so many of us made to reduce the deficit and control the debt by refusing to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans and forces future generations to foot the bill. Over the cliff like a lemming; but I suppose there is nothing like a little lemming to go with tea. Instead of transparency, this set of rules confers ``King for a Day'' status to one Member of the House of Representatives--allowing him to set the entire budget for the federal government without any public input. The last time this country allowed that was never. Only before we were a country did a king set our budget. And now Republicans are set to give this authority again to one person, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, a person I admire as a Member of Congress--as a King, not so much. And, in the next few days, the new House majority wants to repeal help for seniors on prescription drugs and take away consumer protections from families battling insurance problems. This effort will add $143 billion to the deficit over the next ten years. This is all happening while we should be focusing on the economic recovery that is underway thanks to the tough decisions that the last Congress made. We need to redirect our focus to the economy and stop exploding the deficits and debt.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under what is known as the Long Term Leasing Act, lands held in trust for Indian tribes may be leased for a variety of purposes for a term of no greater than 25 years, with an option for an additional 25 years if approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Often, tribes find that in order to operate more efficiently and to sustain economic development activities, they need to be able to lease trust lands for longer periods. In fact, through various acts of Congress, approximately 50 tribes have been granted the ability to issue leases not to exceed 99 years. The pending legislation would afford this extended leasing authority to several tribes in the State of Oregon. I want to commend our colleagues, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Schrader from Oregon, for their work in getting this bill to the floor. I ask Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge our colleagues to support S. 1448, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1448) to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99- year lease authority for trust land.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 1609, the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector Single Fishery Cooperative Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Cantwell of Washington, is a Senate companion to H.R. 3910, legislation I introduced in the House, along with Representative Don Young of Alaska. This is a bipartisan effort. It has the support of Representatives Doc Hastings, Dave Reichert and Jay Inslee of Washington State as well. This bill will further efforts by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to rationalize the Pacific cod fishery and end the ``race for fish'' in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. This legislation represents an important step in achieving the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by enabling safer, more environmentally sound fishing practices, while also providing much-needed economic stability. The freezer longline sector of the Pacific cod industry currently operates as a derby-style fishery. Providing the opportunity for participants to transition from this style of fishing to a cooperative model is essential to meeting conservation goals and, most importantly, will significantly improve the safety of life at sea. In addition, fishery cooperatives provide more economic stability and predictability. They help prevent the types of severe price swings that this fishery experienced last year when the price for Pacific cod was cut in half. This type of instability not only impacts the market and consumers, but threatens the ability for these mostly family-owned businesses to continue fishing. The economic stabilization of the fleet will also allow for new investments in both vessels and equipment and much-needed jobs for shipyards throughout the Puget Sound region. S. 1609 has broad support within the freezer longline sector, the commercial fishing industry, the State of Alaska, the State of Washington, and the environmental community. So I urge the House to pass this bipartisan bill, S. 1609.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn North Korea's unprovoked artillery attack against the Republic of Korea. We stand with our treaty ally during this challenging time. The artillery attack against Yeonpyeong is part of a recent pattern of aggressive and violent behavior by the North. Earlier this year, a North Korean submarine attacked the South Korean ship Cheonan, killing 46 sailors. I commend the Administration for standing side by side with South Korea. South Korea is a strong trading partner and ally in the Asia- Pacific region. South Korea, and all countries around the world, must know that the U.S. stands with its friends. Our nation has been steadfast in our support of our Korean allies for over 60 years. We will not waver now. It is time for all nations interested in a stable and denuclearized Korean peninsula to denounce the recent aggression by North Korea and work for continued peace and prosperity in the region.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I want to thank the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee for helping to bring this bill to the floor, and of course I thank both sides of the aisle on the full committee for bringing this bill to the floor. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6184. This bill extends section 214 authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 through 2016. It is currently authorized through December 31 of this year. As my good friend and colleague from Florida just noted, many Members of Congress want to make this a permanent program. I am one of those Members. However, we were able to get to a point where we could move it from the annual reauthorizations that we were doing, which is why it has been reauthorized six or seven times, to a 5-year reauthorization at this point. I certainly look forward to working with Mr. Olson in the next session of Congress to see what we can do about its permanent authorization. This program allows local governments to fund additional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff time to expedite the processing of permits for infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects. Section 214 was enacted by Congress because the Corps of Engineers' permitting process had become cumbersome for both Corps staff and for applicants as the number of permit applications rose. By funding additional staff to work on specific, time-intensive permits, existing Corps staff is now able to process significant permit backlogs more quickly. Funding for additional Corps staff has resulted in a reduction of permit wait times, not only for the funding entity, but for any individual organization seeking a permit. As a result, local governments are now able to move forward with infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects in a much more timely manner. To give you an idea as to what this has meant in Washington State, section 214 is currently being used by over 41 public agencies in 20 Corps districts. In Washington State, the city of Seattle was the first public entity in the country to develop and use this facilitated permitting process. The city has used the section 214 program for 285 projects, representing over $1.1 billion in capital investments. Seven years of using this program has resulted in an estimated cost savings of $10.6 million. The average review time per project has been reduced from over 808 days to an average now of 47 to 166 days. In a region where we have to balance some of the most difficult environmental issues in the country and where we have the second highest commerce and trade area of any region in the country, section 214 is key to overcoming some permitting delays and other challenges. So the authority granted by 214 has worked well in practice. This authority does need to be reviewed so additional staff can remain on the job without interruption. It makes several important improvements, as the subcommittee chair has noted--improvements that were suggested by the GAO--and these changes will enhance the oversight of the program. I also want to note that this bill has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Public Works Association, and the National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies. Finally, I want to note as well that the father of this particular section of the Water Resources Development Act is our colleague Brian Baird, who has retired and is finishing out his last term in Congress. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to our colleague Mr. Baird for bringing this issue up in the first place back in '98, '99 and 2000 and getting it in WRDA of 2000. We now need to reauthorize it for 5 years and move this bill forward. I ask my colleagues to support it.