Rick Larsen

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3935, a bipartisan, bicameral effort, done in good faith, to create a safer, cleaner, greener, more innovative and accessible U.S. aviation system. After reviewing more than a thousand stakeholder requests and Member priorities, holding six committee hearings, and engaging in months of negotiations with the Senate, we have finally reached a pivotal milestone for U.S. aviation, the final passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. I am proud to support this 5-year reauthorization to ensure that American aviation continues to be a powerful economic engine that creates good-paying jobs and supports local communities across the country. Before I get into the details, I will provide the FAA bill by the numbers: $4 billion, that is how much we boost the annual Airport Improvement Program funding to, an increase of $650 million a year, with at least $150 million in AIP discretionary funds for airport noise and environmental sustainability projects; $60 million, the new robust annual funding for workforce development grants to grow the next generation of aviation manufacturing workers, aviation maintenance technicians, and pilots, including a $12 million set aside annually for the new Willa Brown Aviation Education Program to support outreach and educational opportunities to underrepresented communities; $0, that is how much it will cost families now to sit with their young children on commercial aircraft; $200 million for new annual grants to increase airport runway safety and resiliency; $350 million to establish a groundbreaking reimbursement program for airports to replace harmful PFAS firefighting foam and equipment with safer alternatives; and finally, $20 million per year to launch a new pilot program to fund capital projects that improve airport accessibility, among other key reforms. The U.S. aviation system is the safest in the world, but it has been tested in recent years. To rise to that challenge, this bill helps runway incursions by expanding ground surveillance and detection technology at major airports to better alert air traffic controllers and the pilots of potential danger. Similarly, to combat fatigue and stress on the air traffic controller workforce caused by understaffing, this bill requires the FAA to hire the maximum number of controllers and to adopt the most appropriate controller staffing model to meet the aviation system's evolving needs. At a time of unprecedented aerospace innovation, this final bill provides a clear and predictable framework for new airspace entrants to scale safely in our skies. The bill requires the FAA to issue rulemakings for beyond visual line of sight, or BVLOS, drone operations, and to finalize the certification standards and operating rules for powered-lift advanced air mobility, or AAM, aircraft. It will also help State, local, and Tribal governments to use drones for infrastructure inspection and repair so maintenance and construction crews can work safely. The 2024 FAA reauthorization builds the foundation for a cleaner and greener future for our aviation ecosystem, as well. The bill allows U.S. airports to use AIP funds for alternative fuel infrastructure, including for hydrogen and unleaded fuels, and works to mitigate the impacts of aviation noise on local communities like those near Paine Field and Bellingham International Airport in my own district. The reauthorization bill is also a jobs bill. It will help to build the economy and diversify our aviation workforce, recognizing how critical this effort is to U.S. leadership in the evolving global aviation sector. In addition to the robust investment for workforce development grants, this bill directs the FAA and the Department of Defense to collaborate on improving the career transition between military and civil aviation and establishes a task force to oversee and advise on the FAA's efforts to support the mental health of the aviation workforce. Furthermore, the bill fosters a safer workplace by establishing a Federal task force to help protect airline personnel from the troubling rise in assaults and initiating a ramp worker safety call to action to reduce the occurrence of tragic ingestion in blast zone accidents, among other key improvements. Moreover, after many disruptive incidents for passengers in recent years, this reauthorization sets the passenger experience back on the right path, allowing for a safer, accessible, and more dignified travel experience. This bill works to make passengers whole by codifying into U.S. law a requirement that airlines provide cash refunds to passengers and harmonizes with the recent DOT rule to allow for these refunds to be automatic. It also calls for airlines to create policies for reimbursing passengers for meals, lodging, and other costs if their flight is canceled or significantly delayed. Furthermore, this reauthorization breaks down barriers for passengers with disabilities by improving training for airline personnel and contractors who assist these passengers with boarding or deplaning an aircraft and, importantly, for handling their mobility devices, and establishing a pilot program to allow passengers to seamlessly travel with approved service animals. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 cements a safer, cleaner, greener, more innovative, and accessible future for U.S. aviation. I thank my colleagues, Chair Sam Graves, Subcommittee Chair Garret Graves, Subcommittee Ranking Member Steve Cohen, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Cantwell, and Ranking Member Cruz for their collaboration. I also thank the nearly 350 stakeholders representing unions, airlines, airports, manufacturers, disability rights organizations, healthcare groups, so many folks who have endorsed this legislation and have helped build support since we first passed this out of committee last July. Madam Speaker, I stand here today to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers, and I am ready to close. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I close by saying that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 would not have been possible without the staff here in the House of Representatives that have spent more than a year negotiating and drafting this legislation. I thank some folks in closing, and I won't go through the titles-- they know who they are--but by name: Brian Bell, Adam Weiss, Alexandra Menardy, Elizabeth Forro, and Alex Schnelle, who are on the Aviation Subcommittee staff. On the full committee: Kathy Dedrick, Helena Zyblikewycz, Stanton Johnson, Ryan Lehman, Peter True, Hale Diamond, Paul Samberg, Michael Hudspith, and Zane Tolchinsky. I also recognize the Republican Aviation Subcommittee staff, without whom this obviously would not have been done. Both staffs took the direction from the chair and I that we were going to play Team House of Representatives when it came to negotiating the final bill and be bipartisan, as long as we could be bipartisan, through this entire process. I recognize the Subcommittee on Aviation staff on the Republican side: Hunter Presti, Laney Copeland, Julie Devine, Andrew Giacini, Will Moore, Corey Sites, and Christopher Senn. On the full committee: Jack Ruddy, Abby Camp Wenk, Meghan Holland, Corey Cooke, Leslie Parker, Justin Harclerode, and Kerry Goldberg. From the Office of Legislative Counsel, who I never see these people, I never meet them, but they do a lot of work: Karen Anderson, Jordyn Coad, Robert Casturo, Emily Ordakowski, and Michelle Johnston. I thank all those folks for their hard work to make this happen. Their efforts have allowed us to craft a bill that we can all be proud of. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 is a bipartisan, bicameral, good-faith effort that ensures leadership in U.S. aviation safety, sustainability, innovation, and job creation. I strongly support the Senate amendment to H.R. 3935 and urge all of my colleagues to support it, as well. 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, I rise in support of H.R. 8289, which extends the authorization to FAA and its related authorities for 1 week to give the Senate the time it needs to wrap up its consideration of this bicameral and bipartisan comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill. This legislation reflects an agreement between the House and Senate. It will protect the safety of the flying public and ensure the future of the U.S. aviation industry. Think back to last July, Mr. Speaker, when the House passed its version of this bill 351-69, a strong bipartisan bill. Since then, I am actually pleased with the progress that we have made and that we were able to come to an agreement with our Senate counterparts last Sunday. We have been in close contact with the Senate as they have continued to consider this legislation. This is, and will be next week, a bipartisan, bicameral product, and Members should not be surprised about what is included in it. Unfortunately, the Senate is still working through its process and may not be able to send us the bill before the current authorization expires on Friday. Nonetheless, I want to assure Members that Chairman Graves and I have fought hard for House Member priorities. I am very pleased to report that the vast majority of those priorities remain intact in the final package. Members' voices were heard as we worked hard to address the longstanding issues in our aviation system. The Senate just needs a little bit more time. I fully expect the Senate to complete consideration and send the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 to the House well before May 17, the time at which this extension expires. Mr. Speaker, I support the short-term extension, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, new and persistent challenges facing the U.S. aviation system have made clear the status quo is unsustainable. We have to avoid a lapse in authorities of FAA. This current extension does that for 1 week and gives the Senate the short time it needs to deliberate and vote on the final bill. Mr. Speaker, I support this extension, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act. For more than two decades, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has been an essential tool to protect migratory bird habitat in the Pacific Northwest and across the Western Hemisphere. Since 2002, the NMBCA has awarded more than $89 million in grants to over 700 conservation projects in the U.S., Canada, Central and South America, and the Caribbean, protecting more than 5 million acres of bird habitat. The law has also been a critical tool in the fight to reverse the downward global trend in bird population over the past 50 years, which can be attributed to challenges like pesticide use, deforestation, and the lack of adequate environmental protection abroad. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes the only Federal grant initiative for migratory birds through fiscal year 2028. It also gives smaller organizations greater access to grants by lowering the cost-sharing requirement for grant recipients from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, meaning for every $2 organizations contribute, the Federal Government matches with $1. That is great news for the organizations in the North Puget Sound, where I am from, doing important work to protect bird habitat and Washington State's environment. More than 350 migratory bird species rely on the Pacific Northwest as their flyway, including: the western tanager, the violet-green swallow, Swainson's thrush, rufous hummingbird, western sandpiper, and the osprey; All of which but one I have had an opportunity to take photos of. These migratory birds pollinate plants, control pests, and add to the diversity of local ecosystems. They also attract millions of birders to places like Skagit Bay, Padilla Bay, Port Susan Bay, Spencer Island, Wiser Lake, Deception Pass, and the San Juan Islands, just to name a few places in my district. I have had the opportunity to meet with birders and go birding with them, folks from the Audubon Societies of Washington, Pilchuck, Skagit, North Cascades, Whidbey, and San Juan Islands in my district. These dedicated birders provide a boost to local and regional economies. They are ambassadors to the great outdoors. They sponsor great events, like the Snow Goose and Birding Festival in February every year in Stanwood, Washington, where thousands of people come from all over the country to go birding. Success has many parents. I thank Representative Maria Elvira Salazar for leading the charge to reintroduce this bill, as well as Representatives Mary Peltola and David Joyce for co-leading the bill. I thank the many partner organizations that made this happen, like the National Audubon Society, the American Bird Conservancy, and the aforementioned local organizations. I thank the taxpayers who are providing the critical funding needed to protect migratory birds. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to keep bipartisan momentum going to protect migratory birds.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, our predecessors in Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to enact the Clean Water Act, one of the Nation's bedrock environmental laws. The legislation before us today was not developed in that same bipartisan manner, and it undermines the Clean Water Act. I oppose this bill. The pro-clean water bipartisan consensus has held firm for decades, allowing communities to enjoy cleaner water and giving businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth. Thanks to historic investments like the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, our economy is on the move. We have added nearly 15 million jobs since President Biden took office, and unemployment has been under 4 percent for the longest stretch in more than 50 years. Wages are up; inflation is coming down; and we are growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up. That is the context in which our colleagues are proposing to shatter this bipartisan consensus around clean water since the passage of the Clean Water Act. This bill will not improve Clean Water Act project permitting or create certainty. In fact, it does the opposite. According to the Statement of Administration Policy, this bill will ``undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.'' The SAP further confirms the bill will ``create uncertainty, confusion, and conflict in permitting processes.'' What will this bill achieve? It weakens clean water protections. It provides exemptions and legal shields for permit holders. It limits oversight for projects that demand higher scrutiny. What does this bill do for communities? It closes the door for local communities seeking review of projects that are running through their neighborhoods and gives private developers the green light to ignore local perspectives on large-scale projects. This legislation prioritizes the needs of polluters who want to fast- track questionable projects over the public's interest and concern. What does this bill do for the permitting process? In some cases, it slows down the process. The bill adds bureaucratic steps to the process of establishing water quality standards that will slow the implementation of these standards while exposing them to increased litigation. What does it do for clean water? Nothing good. The legislation eliminates EPA's oversight of ecologically devastating projects and makes it easier for industrial polluters to discharge potentially harmful or toxic chemicals into our rivers and streams with no accountability. For example, my colleagues have criticized EPA's use of its Clean Water Act review or veto authority. Yet, the record shows EPA's use of this authority has been consistent with congressional intent. I see no reason for removing this authority. Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA has only exercised this authority 14 times--most recently in relation to large- scale mining proposals in Alaska and West Virginia. EPA's use of this authority has, in fact, been bipartisan. EPA used it 2 times during Democratic administrations and 12 times during Republican administrations. Moving this legislation now is an assault on water quality. The adverse impacts of the provisions in this bill will be substantial on their own. However, enacting rollbacks is an extreme choice in the wake of the 2023 Sackett ruling by the Supreme Court that restricted the waters subject to the Clean Water Act protections. It is estimated the Sackett ruling removed protection nationwide from at least 50 percent of wetlands and up to 70 percent of streams. With a much smaller number of waters subject to the Clean Water Act, additional loopholes to the process like those proposed in the bill are the opposite of what Congress needs to do to protect our water resources. Clean water is not an abstract concept. What is at stake in this legislation is whether people have reliable, drinkable, clean water with which to conduct business, recreate, carry out daily tasks, and sustain life. During committee consideration of this bill, Democrats sought to lessen the negative impacts of this legislation and require the EPA to verify that the changes from this bill would not have negative impacts on water quality or availability. Unfortunately, those amendments were rejected on mostly a party-line vote. Similarly, several Democrats offered amendments to the Rules Committee to ensure the bill did not harm local fisheries, rural and disadvantaged communities, multistate drinking water sources, or infants and children. Again, those amendments were blocked from consideration. If thoughtful oversight of our Nation's waters and the permitting process that protects these waters is still a bipartisan goal, the House of Representatives can do far better than take up H.R. 7023. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 7023, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington

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

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I do think it is incumbent on me to characterize my position and recharacterize my friend's characterization of my position, which, as I recall, was to close buildings and kick out Federal employees. That is not my position. In fact, in many ways, I share the goals of the chair of the subcommittee, that it is clear we have much more federally owned and leased space than is currently being used given the work schedules and changes that have taken place since COVID. It is necessary for us to look at how best to consolidate that space, to rightsize that space, given its usage. The problem I have is the hammer approach that this particular bill takes by setting a hard and fast 60 percent rule rather than looking at the flexibility necessary when you are considering agency by agency, division by division within those agencies, and how that space can be used properly and most efficiently. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on the committee on a wide range of policies, including rightsizing the Federal real estate footprint. Just yesterday, we passed, on suspension, the FASTA Reform Act, a bill that the chairman himself sponsored that will expedite the disposal of excess Federal property. When we work together, we can make some really good progress on this and other issues, but today's bill does fall short by failing to take into account the complexity of the Federal leasing process and using an incomplete and flawed metric for measuring the occupancy rate of Federal buildings. I do welcome the opportunity to work with any Member in good faith, and we have done that, again, on many issues in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We all want to make genuine improvements on the Federal real estate program. Mr. Chair, I do oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy that the administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 12 from the AFL-CIO in opposition to H.R. 6276; a letter dated March 11 from the Federal Workers Alliance opposing H.R. 6276; and a letter dated March 8 from the American Federation of Government Employees opposing H.R. 6276. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 6276--Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies (USE IT) Act of 2023--Rep. Perry, R-PA The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6276, the USE IT Act, which would direct the Director of the Office of Management Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that Federal agencies' building utilization meets an arbitrary level of not less than a 60 percent average each year and, if an agency does not reach the target, GSA and OMB would have to forcibly reduce the agency's space. While the Administration believes that the Federal real estate portfolio needs to be evaluated and optimized, the Administration believes that agencies' unique missions require individualized approaches to improving space utilization. H.R. 6276 does not consider the varying mission and technical requirements of individual agencies or the age and original design of affected facilities when directing the OMB Director and GSA Administrator to develop and implement a plan to consolidate multiple agency headquarters functions into fewer buildings within the National Capital Region. These buildings, many of which are historic, would require major modernization and reconfiguration, prior to supporting dramatically increased occupancy levels. Instead, the Administration recommends strengthening the collection of utilization data by Federal agencies and providing sufficient funding to GSA and affected agencies to execute necessary consolidations. The Administration is committed to working with agencies to improve their utilization of Federal space and to identify opportunities to reduce space.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires GSA to include in its occupancy agreements with Federal tenants a requirement that tenant agencies submit a report on utilization and usage to GSA. It also requires the return of office space by the tenant to GSA if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months within any 1-year period. GSA previously allowed tenant agencies to return unneeded space back to GSA with 120-days' notice, but in May of 2023, GSA changed its policy and now all new occupancy agreements between GSA and Federal tenants must include a noncancellation clause to prevent agencies from returning space to GSA. Requiring agencies to return space if occupancy falls below 60 percent for 6 months does not account for the fact that space costs incurred by the government still remain under the lease contract. While I have concerns about the mechanics and the cost of an agency returning space to GSA with this amendment, I will not oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, again, I do not oppose the amendment on this side of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss).

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, my biggest concern with the underlying bill is that it defines occupancy as the total number of employees physically working from the offices at least 5 days a week. Many Federal employees do not actually sit at their desks at all because they are out in the field working. As the bill is currently written, these employees--as well as Federal employees who have approved alternative work schedules--would not be included in occupancy counts. This amendment makes a slight improvement to that definition, as was explained by the Representative from Massachusetts. The effort to count occupants in buildings is worthwhile, but only if we ensure that all occupants, including those who have been sanctioned and approved with their alternative work schedules, are included. This amendment will improve the bill, and I thank the Representative from Pennsylvania and the Representative from Massachusetts for their efforts. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, section 4 of H.R. 6276 requires the heads of Federal agencies to submit to the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration and Congress a report on the usage of real property. The amendment that the Representative from Wyoming offers expands the reporting requirement by including the telework and remote work practices of the agency and the impact those policies have on utilization rates and buildings occupied by the respective agency. It certainly would be helpful for Congress to have a clearer picture of these policies and practices across the government. Mr. Chair, I 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 the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.